Federal Land Management
Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act Restrictions and Management Weaknesses Limit Future Sales and Acquisitions Gao ID: GAO-08-196 February 5, 2008The U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service manage about 628 million acres of public land, mostly in the 11 western states and Alaska. Under the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA), revenue raised from selling BLM lands is available to the agencies, primarily to acquire nonfederal land within the boundaries of land they already own--known as inholdings, which can create significant land management problems. To acquire land, the agencies can nominate parcels under state-level interagency agreements or the Secretaries can use their discretion to initiate acquisitions. FLTFA expires in 2010. GAO was asked to determine (1) FLTFA revenue generated, (2) challenges to future sales, (3) FLTFA expenditures, and (4) challenges to future acquisitions. To address these issues, GAO interviewed officials and examined the act, agency guidance, and FLTFA sale and acquisition data.
Since FLTFA was enacted in 2000, through May 2007 BLM has raised $95.7 million in revenue, mostly from selling about 17,000 acres. About 92 percent of the revenue raised, or $88 million, has come from land transactions in Nevada--1 of the 11 western states. Nevada accounts for the lion's share of the sales because of a rapidly expanding population, plentiful BLM land, and experience with federal land sales in southern Nevada. Most BLM field offices have not generated sales revenue under FLTFA. BLM faces several challenges to raising revenue through future FLTFA sales. In particular, BLM state and field officials most frequently cited the limited availability of knowledgeable realty staff to conduct the sales. These staff are often not available because they are working on higher priority activities, such as reviewing and approving energy rights-of-way. We identified two additional issues hampering land sales activity under FLTFA. First, while BLM has identified land for sale in its land use plans, it has not made the sale of this land a priority during the first 7 years of the program. Furthermore, BLM has not set goals for sales or developed a sales implementation strategy. Second, GAO found that some of the additional land BLM has identified for sale since FLTFA was enacted would not generate revenue for acquisitions because the act only allows the deposit of revenue from the sale of lands identified for disposal on or before the date of the act. The four land management agencies have spent $13.3 million of the $95.7 million in revenue raised under FLTFA: $10.1 million using the Secretaries' discretion to acquire nine parcels of land and $3.2 million for administrative expenses to prepare land for FLTFA sales. The agencies acquired the land between August 2007 and January 2008--more than 7 years after FLTFA was enacted, and BLM spent the administrative funds between 2000 and 2007, primarily for preparing FLTFA sales in Nevada. As of October 2007, no land had been purchased through the state-level interagency nomination process, which the agencies envisioned as the primary mechanism for acquiring land. Agencies face several challenges to completing future land acquisitions under FLTFA. Most notably, the act requires that the agencies use most of the funds to purchase land in the state in which the funds were raised; this restriction has had the effect of making little revenue available for acquisitions outside of Nevada. Furthermore, progress in acquiring priority lands has been hampered by weak agency performance in identifying inholdings and setting priorities for acquiring them, as required by the act. In addition, GAO found that the agencies have not established procedures to track implementation of the act's requirement that at least 80 percent of FLTFA revenue raised in each state be used to acquire inholdings in that state or the extent to which BLM is complying with agreed-upon fund allocations among the four participating agencies. Of the revenue generated by FLTFA sales, the agencies have agreed to allocate 60 percent to BLM, 20 percent to the Forest Service, and 10 percent each to the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Park Service.
RecommendationsOur 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:GAO-08-196, Federal Land Management: Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act Restrictions and Management Weaknesses Limit Future Sales and Acquisitions
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-196
entitled 'Federal Land Management: Federal Land Transaction
Facilitation Act Restrictions and Management Weaknesses Limit Future
Sales and Acquisitions' which was released on February 5, 2008.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
February 2008:
Federal Land Management:
Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act Restrictions and Management
Weaknesses Limit Future Sales and Acquisitions:
Federal Land Management:
GAO-08-196:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-196, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The U.S. Department of the Interior‘s Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service, and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture‘s Forest Service manage about 628 million
acres of public land, mostly in the 11 western states and Alaska. Under
the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA), revenue raised
from selling BLM lands is available to the agencies, primarily to
acquire nonfederal land within the boundaries of land they already
own”known as inholdings, which can create significant land management
problems. To acquire land, the agencies can nominate parcels under
state-level interagency agreements or the Secretaries can use their
discretion to initiate acquisitions. FLTFA expires in 2010.
GAO was asked to determine (1) FLTFA revenue generated, (2) challenges
to future sales, (3) FLTFA expenditures, and (4) challenges to future
acquisitions. To address these issues, GAO interviewed officials and
examined the act, agency guidance, and FLTFA sale and acquisition data.
What GAO Found:
Since FLTFA was enacted in 2000, through May 2007 BLM has raised $95.7
million in revenue, mostly from selling about 17,000 acres. About 92
percent of the revenue raised, or $88 million, has come from land
transactions in Nevada”1 of the 11 western states. Nevada accounts for
the lion‘s share of the sales because of a rapidly expanding
population, plentiful BLM land, and experience with federal land sales
in southern Nevada. Most BLM field offices have not generated sales
revenue under FLTFA.
BLM faces several challenges to raising revenue through future FLTFA
sales. In particular, BLM state and field officials most frequently
cited the limited availability of knowledgeable realty staff to conduct
the sales. These staff are often not available because they are working
on higher priority activities, such as reviewing and approving energy
rights-of-way. We identified two additional issues hampering land sales
activity under FLTFA. First, while BLM has identified land for sale in
its land use plans, it has not made the sale of this land a priority
during the first 7 years of the program. Furthermore, BLM has not set
goals for sales or developed a sales implementation strategy. Second,
GAO found that some of the additional land BLM has identified for sale
since FLTFA was enacted would not generate revenue for acquisitions
because the act only allows the deposit of revenue from the sale of
lands identified for disposal on or before the date of the act.
The four land management agencies have spent $13.3 million of the $95.7
million in revenue raised under FLTFA: $10.1 million using the
Secretaries‘ discretion to acquire nine parcels of land and $3.2
million for administrative expenses to prepare land for FLTFA sales.
The agencies acquired the land between August 2007 and January
2008”more than 7 years after FLTFA was enacted, and BLM spent the
administrative funds between 2000 and 2007, primarily for preparing
FLTFA sales in Nevada. As of October 2007, no land had been purchased
through the state-level interagency nomination process, which the
agencies envisioned as the primary mechanism for acquiring land.
Agencies face several challenges to completing future land acquisitions
under FLTFA. Most notably, the act requires that the agencies use most
of the funds to purchase land in the state in which the funds were
raised; this restriction has had the effect of making little revenue
available for acquisitions outside of Nevada. Furthermore, progress in
acquiring priority lands has been hampered by weak agency performance
in identifying inholdings and setting priorities for acquiring them, as
required by the act. In addition, GAO found that the agencies have not
established procedures to track implementation of the act‘s requirement
that at least 80 percent of FLTFA revenue raised in each state be used
to acquire inholdings in that state or the extent to which BLM is
complying with agreed-upon fund allocations among the four
participating agencies. Of the revenue generated by FLTFA sales, the
agencies have agreed to allocate 60 percent to BLM, 20 percent to the
Forest Service, and 10 percent each to the Fish and Wildlife Service
and the Park Service.
What GAO Recommends:
If Congress decides to reauthorize FLTFA, GAO recommends that it
consider including additional lands for sale and greater flexibility
for acquisitions. GAO also recommends that the agencies take actions to
better manage the FLTFA program. Interior generally concurred with
GAO‘s findings and recommendations; Agriculture made no comment.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.GAO-08-196]. For more information, contact Robin
M. Nazzaro at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
BLM Has Raised Most FLTFA Revenue from Land Sales in Nevada:
BLM Faces Several Challenges to Future Sales under FLTFA:
Agencies Have Purchased Few Parcels with FLTFA Revenue:
Agencies Face Challenges in Completing Additional Acquisitions:
Conclusions:
Matters for Congressional Consideration:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Completed FLTFA Land Sales, through May 2007:
Appendix III: Detailed Information on Planned FLTFA Land Sales through
2010, as Reported by BLM State Offices:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: BLM Reported FLTFA Cumulative Revenue from Sales by State,
July 25, 2000, through May 31, 2007:
Table 2: Number of Sales and Revenue Raised by Competitive, Modified
Competitive, and Direct Sales under FLTFA, as of May 31, 2007:
Table 3: BLM Reported Planned FLTFA Sales, through 2010:
Table 4: Status of FLTFA Land Acquisition Projects Approved under the
Secretarial Initiative, as of January 23, 2008:
Table 5: FLTFA Land Acquisition Nominations Reviewed by State-Level
Interagency Teams, as of May 31, 2007A:
Table 6: Completion of FLTFA Implementation Agreements and Federal
Register Notifications by State:
Table 7: BLM Reported Administrative Expenditures by State,
July 25, 2000, through July 20, 2007:
Table 8: FLTFA Administrative Expenditures by Type, as of July 20,
2007:
Table 9: Additional Criteria Contained in FLTFA State-Level Agreements
beyond Those Criteria Established under the Act:
Table 10: The Seven BLM Field Offices Selected That Have Generated 97
Percent of FLTFA Revenue, as of May 31, 2007:
Table 11: The Eleven BLM Field Offices Selected That Had Not Conducted
a Competitive Sale under FLTFA, as of May 31, 2007:
Figures:
Figure 1: LWCF Land Acquisition Appropriations, Fiscal Year 2001
through Fiscal Year 2006:
Figure 2: Requirements for Using FLTFA Revenue:
Figure 3: FLTFA Revenue by Fiscal Year, through May 31, 2007:
Figure 4: Two BLM Parcels Near Carson City, Nevada, Sold for a Total of
$24.5 Million:
Figure 5: BLM "North Fork" 167-Acre Parcel on the Eastern Edge of Las
Cruces, New Mexico, Planned for Competitive Sale in an April 2008
Auction:
Figure 6: A View of the West Mesa BLM Property in Las Cruces, New
Mexico, That Will Be Added to Land Designated for Disposal in the
Revised Land Use Plan:
Figure 7: Part of an Inholding in the BLM La Cienega Area of Critical
Environmental Concern That Has Been Acquired with FLTFA Funding:
Figure 8: Photograph and Location of the 80-Acre Pine Creek State Park
Inholding Approved as an FLTFA-Funded Acquisition at $16 Million:
Figure 9: The 320-Acre Winter's Ranch FLTFA Acquisition Nomination in
Nevada, Valued at $29 Million:
Figure 10: FLTFA Administrative Expenditures, July 25, 2000, through
July 20, 2007:
Abbreviations:
BLM: Bureau of Land Management:
FLPMA: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976:
FLTFA: Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act of 2000:
LWCF: Land and Water Conservation Fund:
MOU: memorandum of understanding:
SNPLMA: Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998:
United States Government Accountability Office: Washington, DC 20548:
February 5, 2008:
The Honorable Norman D. Dicks:
Chairman:
The Honorable Todd Tiahrt:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: Committee
on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
The four major federal land management agencies--the U.S. Department of
the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife
Service, and National Park Service, and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Forest Service--administer approximately 628 million
acres, or about 28 percent of the land area in the United States. These
public lands are mostly in the 11 western states and Alaska, where the
four agencies manage lands that constitute significant portions of the
states' acreage, ranging from about 28 percent in Washington state to
about 81 percent in Nevada. These lands have multiple uses, from
preserving cultural and natural treasures to accommodating the
development of resources, such as oil and gas, among other things.
Historically, many controversies have arisen over the agencies'
management of these lands, including the selling of federal land and
the purchasing of private land. In these controversies, the agencies
have had to balance the need to protect resources in the land they
manage with the need to respect the rights of private landowners.
One particularly controversial issue has been managing federal lands
with inholdings, which are nonfederal lands within the boundaries of
national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and other designated areas.
In 2005, the agencies estimated there were at least 70 million acres of
inholdings within the lands they manage.[Footnote 1] Inholdings can
create significant management problems for federal agencies in
maintaining boundaries, providing security, and protecting resources,
among other things. The federal land management agencies have had the
authority to acquire inholdings, but have had limited funding for
exercising this authority.
Congress enacted the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act of 2000
(FLTFA), in part, to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of
federal land management by allowing the four land management agencies
to acquire inholdings to promote the consolidation of ownership of
public and private lands in a manner that would allow for better
overall resource management.[Footnote 2] Revenue generated by the sale
or exchange of public lands under FLTFA has created another funding
source available to the four agencies to acquire land when
appropriations for acquisitions have been declining.[Footnote 3] These
funds are available to the agencies without further appropriation.
BLM, which manages approximately 256 million acres of federal land, is
authorized to sell or exchange land identified in its land use
plans,[Footnotes 4, 5] the other three land management agencies have
limited or no sales authority. Therefore, the funds for FLTFA
acquisitions must come from the revenue generated by BLM sales or
equalization payments derived from exchanges. BLM may dispose of land
that meets certain criteria, including land that is difficult to
manage, no longer needed, or needed for community expansion. Thus, when
BLM sells land, the sale generates revenue and reduces the burden on
its land managers to accomplish such tasks as monitoring scattered
acreage and boundaries.
Once BLM has sold land, FLTFA directs BLM to deposit the revenue
generated from these transactions into a special U.S. Treasury account
created by FLTFA.[Footnote 6] However, the act limits the revenue
deposited into this account to that generated from sales or exchanges
of public lands identified for disposal in a land use plan in effect as
of July 25, 2000--the date of FLTFA's enactment. Money in the new
account is available to BLM and the other three agencies to purchase
inholdings, and in some cases, land adjacent to federally designated
areas and containing exceptional resources.[Footnote 7] The act expires
in July 2010, and the Administration has proposed revising and
extending it.
BLM sells its land in one of three ways: competitive sales; modified
competitive sales, which provide a preference to existing land users or
adjoining landowners; and direct sales, which occur in special
situations, such as when parcels are completely surrounded by one
landowner and there is no public access. BLM prefers competitive sales
because these usually generate the most revenue and, therefore, are
more likely to increase the revenue available under FLTFA for land
acquisitions. BLM staff in headquarters, its 12 state offices, and 144
field offices nationwide manage and conduct these sales.[Footnote 8]
About 300 full-time equivalent staff, out of a workforce of about
10,500 full- time equivalent staff, are responsible for land and realty
management in BLM. These staff are directly responsible for land sales
and acquisitions, along with other realty responsibilities, such as
processing energy rights-of-way and leasing and permitting on public
lands.
The federal land agencies have two methods for identifying land to
acquire under FLTFA. First, the agencies can nominate parcels through a
process laid out in state-level implementation agreements that were
developed under the direction of a national memorandum of understanding
(MOU) that implemented the program. Under the process, state-level
interagency teams are to review proposals for land acquisitions and
forward their nominations to the Secretaries of Agriculture and of the
Interior for approval. Second, the Secretaries can directly use a
portion of FLTFA revenue to acquire specific parcels of land at their
own discretion. The national MOU laid out the expectation that most
acquisitions would occur through the state-level process.
FLTFA places several restrictions on using funds from the new U.S.
Treasury account. Among other things, FLTFA requires that (1) no more
than 20 percent can be used for BLM's administrative and other
activities necessary to carry out the land disposal program; (2) of the
amount not spent on administrative expenses, at least 80 percent of the
revenue must be expended in the state in which the funds were
generated; and (3) at least 80 percent of FLTFA revenue required to be
spent on land acquisitions within a state must be used to acquire
inholdings (as opposed to adjacent land) within that state. In
addition, the national MOU sets the allocation of funds from the FLTFA
account for each agency--60 percent for BLM, 20 percent for the Forest
Service, and 10 percent each for the Fish and Wildlife Service and the
Park Service, but the Secretaries may vary from these allocations by
mutual agreement.
With FLTFA expiring in July 2010, you asked us to (1) determine the
extent to which BLM has generated revenue for the FLTFA program, (2)
identify challenges BLM faces in conducting future sales, (3) determine
the extent to which agencies have spent funds under FLTFA, and (4)
identify challenges the agencies face in conducting future
acquisitions.
To address these objectives, we reviewed FLTFA, other applicable
authorities, and agency guidance, and interviewed FLTFA program leads
at the four agencies' headquarters, officials with Interior's Office of
the Solicitor, and officials with the Office of the Assistant Secretary
for Land and Minerals Management on FLTFA implementation. We also
obtained and analyzed data from BLM's Division of Business Services on
program revenue and expenditures and visited the Division of Business
Services accounting officials in Lakewood, Colorado, to discuss the
management of the FLTFA account.[Footnote] We conducted semistructured
interviews and collected data from (1) the 10 BLM state officials
responsible for the FLTFA program in their office on the program's
status, completed and planned FLTFA land sales and acquisitions, and
the challenges faced in conducting sales and acquiring land; (2)
officials at the 7 BLM field offices that have raised 97 percent of the
FLTFA revenue; and (3) a nongeneralizable sample of 11 of the 137
remaining BLM district and field offices that had not conducted a
competitive sale under FLTFA as of May 31, 2007 to determine why such
sales have generally not occurred and challenges faced to conducting
future sales. With regard to acquisitions, we reviewed available
documentation for land acquisition proposals considered by the 10 FLTFA
interagency teams at the state level, agency headquarters, and the
Secretaries of Agriculture and of the Interior. During our visits to
BLM state offices (California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Oregon) and
field offices (Carson City, Nevada, and Las Cruces, New Mexico), we
interviewed officials and visited planned land acquisition sites to
learn about the details of the land acquisition process. A more
detailed description of our scope and methodology is presented in
appendix I. We performed our work between November 2006 and February
2008 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Results in Brief:
Since FLTFA was enacted in 2000, BLM has raised $95.7 million in
revenue, mostly from selling 16,659 acres. As of May 2007, about 92
percent of the revenue raised, or $88 million, has come from land sales
in Nevada. Revenue grew slowly during the first years of the program
and peaked in fiscal year 2006, when a total of $71.1 million was
generated. BLM's Nevada office accounts for the lion's share of the
sales because (1) demand for land to develop has been high in rapidly
expanding population centers such as Las Vegas, (2) BLM has a high
percentage land in proximity to these centers, and (3) BLM has
experience selling land under another federal land sales program
authorized for southern Nevada. More specifically, the Carson City and
Las Vegas Field Offices generated a total of $86.2 million, or 90
percent of all revenue generated under FLTFA, mostly through a few
competitive sales. As of May 31, 2007, BLM offices covering three other
states--New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington--have raised over $1 million
each, and the remaining seven BLM state offices--Arizona, California,
Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming--had each raised less than
$1 million. Most BLM field offices have not generated revenue under
FLTFA.
BLM faces several challenges to raising revenue through future sales
under FLTFA that BLM managers and we identified. Most frequently, BLM
state and field officials cited the lack of availability of
knowledgeable realty staff to conduct the sales as a challenge. These
staff may not be available because they are working on activities that
BLM has identified as higher priorities, such as reviewing and
approving energy rights-of-way. This challenge is followed, in the
order of frequency cited, by the time, cost, and complexity of the land
sales process; external factors, such as public opposition to a sale;
FLTFA program and legal restrictions; and the land use planning
process. Many of the challenges they raised to conducting sales are not
unique to FLTFA sales. We identified two additional issues hampering
land sales activity under FLTFA. First, although BLM has identified
land for sale in its land use plans, it has not made the sale of these
lands a priority during the first 7 years of the program. Furthermore,
BLM has not set goals for FLTFA sales or developed a sales
implementation strategy. The establishment of goals is an effective
management tool for measuring and achieving results. While some BLM
state offices told us they have planned FLTFA sales--96, totaling
25,404 acres--through 2010, BLM has no overall implementation strategy
for generating funds to purchase inholdings as mandated by FLTFA.
Second, although BLM has identified a number of land parcels for
disposal since the act's passage, revenue from these potential sales
will not be eligible for deposit into the FLTFA account because the act
only allows the deposit of revenue from the sale of land identified for
disposal on or before July 25, 2000, the date of its enactment.
BLM reports that the four land management agencies have spent $13.3
million of the $95.7 million in the FLTFA account. They spent $10.1
million to acquire nine parcels totaling 3,381 acres in seven states--
Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, and Wyoming.
In addition, BLM spent $3.2 million for administrative expenses between
2000 and 2007 to conduct FLTFA-eligible sales, primarily in Nevada. The
agencies acquired the land between August 2007 and January 2008--more
than 7 years after FLTFA was enacted. These acquisitions were initiated
using the Secretaries' discretion, and most had been identified but not
funded for purchase under another land acquisition program. As of
October 2007, no land had been purchased through the state-level
interagency nomination process that was established by the national MOU
and state agreements. The agencies envisioned these agreements as the
primary process for acquiring land under FLTFA. Acquisitions have not
yet occurred under the state-level process because it has taken 6 years
to complete the interagency agreements needed to implement the program
and because relatively little revenue is available for acquisitions
outside of Nevada, owing to the FLTFA requirement that, excluding
administrative expenses, at least 80 percent of the funds must be spent
in the state where revenue were raised. Although Nevada has proposed
five acquisitions, none have been completed. Two of the proposed
acquisitions approved by the secretaries failed because of differences
with the owners, one was withdrawn because it did not meet FLTFA
criteria, one is pending secretarial approval, and one was recently
approved.
BLM managers and we identified several challenges to completing future
land acquisitions under FLTFA. Most frequently, BLM state and field
officials cited the time, cost, and complexity of the acquisition
process as a challenge. For example, to complete an acquisition under
the MOU, four agencies must work together to identify, nominate, and
rank proposed acquisitions, which must then be approved by the two
Secretaries. The other most commonly cited challenges officials raised
were, in order of frequency, (1) identifying a willing seller, (2) the
availability of knowledgeable staff to conduct acquisitions, (3) the
lack of funding to purchase land, (4) restrictions imposed by laws and
regulations, and (5) public opposition to land acquisitions. Some of
these challenges are likely typical of many federal land acquisitions.
Officials from the other three agencies had few comments on challenges
to acquisitions because they have had little experience with the
program. We also found that the act's restriction on the use of funds
outside of the state in which they were raised continues to limit
acquisitions. Specifically, little revenue is available for
acquisitions outside of Nevada. Furthermore, progress in acquiring
priority land has been hampered by the agencies' weak performance in
identifying inholdings and setting priorities for acquiring them, as
required by the act. In addition, we found that the agencies have not
established procedures to track key provisions in the act and the
national MOU. Specifically, the agencies have not established a
procedure to track the act's requirement that at least 80 percent of
FLTFA revenue allocated for land acquisitions in each state are used to
acquire inholdings in that state. In addition, BLM has not established
a procedure to track agreed-upon fund allocations--60 percent for BLM,
20 percent for the Forest Service, and 10 percent each for the Fish and
Wildlife Service and the Park Service in the national MOU. Because the
agencies have not tracked these amounts, they cannot ensure they are
fully complying with the act or fully implementing the MOU.
If Congress decides to reauthorize FLTFA, we raise two matters for
congressional consideration to better meet the goals of FLTFA. These
matters relate to making additional land eligible for sales and
increased flexibility in the use of funds for acquisitions under the
program. In addition, we are making five recommendations to the
Secretaries to better manage and oversee the FLTFA program, such as
developing goals for FLTFA sales and a strategy to implement them. In
commenting on a draft of this report the Department of the Interior
generally concurred with our findings and recommendations, stating that
it will implement all of the recommendations. Their comments are
presented in appendix IV of this report. In addition, Interior and the
Department of Agriculture provided technical comments on the draft
report, which we have incorporated as appropriate.
Background:
FLTFA, commonly called the "Baca Act,"[Footnote 10] provides for the
use of revenue from the sale or exchange of BLM land identified for
disposal under land use plans in effect as of the date of its
enactment--July 25, 2000. The act does not apply to land identified for
disposal after its enactment, such as through a land use plan amendment
approved after that date. Revenue generated under FLTFA are available
to the Secretaries of Agriculture and of the Interior for acquiring
inholdings within certain federally designated areas, or land adjacent
to those areas and containing exceptional resources, and for
administrative and other expenses necessary to carry out the land
disposal program under the FLTFA.
To implement FLTFA, BLM has designated a program lead realty specialist
in headquarters, in each state office involved, and in each field
office within those states. The program lead duties are sometimes split
between land and realty staff who specialize in sales and others who
specialize in the acquisition process. In addition, to facilitate the
use of FLTFA funds for acquisition, the other three agencies sharing in
the revenue, the Forest Service, the Park Service, and the Fish and
Wildlife Service, have also designated realty staff to participate in
interagency groups to decide on acquisitions in each BLM state. BLM
manages the FLTFA account through its Division of Business Services.
Federal Land Sales Authorities and Process:
Although FLTFA authorizes proceeds from eligible land sales and
exchanges to be used in acquiring land, it does not provide any new
sales authority. The sales authority, as stated in FLTFA, is provided
by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). FLPMA
authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to dispose of certain federal
lands--through sale and exchange, among other disposal methods--and
authorizes the Secretaries of Agriculture and of the Interior to
acquire certain nonfederal lands. FLPMA also authorizes the Secretary
of Agriculture to exchange land. FLPMA requires the Secretary of the
Interior to develop land use plans to determine which lands are
eligible for disposal and acquisition. The level of specificity differs
in land use plans, from describing general areas to naming specific
parcels. In developing these land use plans, agencies must work closely
with federal, state, and local governments and allow for public
participation. Land use plans are typically revised every 15 to 20
years to address changing land use conditions in the area covered.
Sales and acquisitions must comply with requirements of FLPMA and other
applicable laws, which can require, among other things, an assessment
of the environmental impacts of the proposed land transaction,
assessment of natural and cultural resources, preparation of
appraisals, and public involvement. Furthermore, with regard to land
sales specifically, FLPMA requires that land be sold at the appraised
fair market value or higher.
Although BLM policy states that competitive sales are preferred when a
number of parties are interested in bidding on a parcel for sale,
regulations for the FLPMA land sales authority provide for other
methods of sale when certain criteria are met. The regulations state
that modified competitive sales may be used to permit the current
grazing user or adjoining landowner to meet the high bid at the public
sale. This procedure allows for limited competitive sales to protect
ongoing uses, to assure compatibility of the possible uses with
adjacent land, and to avoid dislocating current users. The regulations
state that a direct sale may be used when the land offered for sale is
completely surrounded by land in one ownership with no public access,
when the land is needed by state or local governments or nonprofit
corporations, or when the land is necessary to protect current equities
in the land or resolve inadvertent unauthorized use or occupancy of the
land.
In completing the steps necessary to purchase land, third-party
organizations, such as The Nature Conservancy and The Trust for Public
Land, often provide assistance to the federal government. For example,
third parties may assist by purchasing desired land for eventual resale
to the federal government or by negotiating an option with the seller
to purchase land within a specified period of time, which provides
additional time for the federal agency to secure necessary funding for
the purchase or to comply with laws and regulations governing the
acquisition.
Federal Land Acquisition Funding:
The primary source for land acquisition funding for BLM, the Park
Service, the Forest Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service, has
traditionally been the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which
was created to help preserve, develop, and assure access to outdoor
recreation resources.[Footnote 11] To receive LWCF funding, the
agencies independently identify and set priorities for land
acquisitions and then submit their list of priority acquisitions in
their annual budget request to Congress. LWCF funding is available for
land acquisition purposes only if appropriated by Congress, unlike the
funds in the FLTFA account, which are available without further
appropriation.
LWCF land acquisition appropriations have been declining in recent
years. Specifically, funds for the four agencies declined from $453.4
million appropriated in fiscal year 2001 to $120.1 million appropriated
in fiscal year 2006, as depicted in figure 1.[Footnote 12] BLM has
traditionally received the lowest amount of LWCF land acquisition
funding among the four agencies. For example, in fiscal year 2006,
BLM's share of total appropriated LWCF land acquisition funding was
only $8.6 million, or about 7 percent of the total
appropriation.[Footnote 13] BLM's land sales eligible under FLTFA have
created another funding source for the four agencies to acquire land.
FLTFA provides that if all funds in the account are not used by the
sunset date in 2010, they will become available for appropriation under
section 3 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act.
Figure 1: LWCF Land Acquisition Appropriations, Fiscal Year 2001
through Fiscal Year 2006:
This figure is a line chart showing LWCF land acquisition
appropriations between fiscal year 2001 and 2006
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Other Land Sale Laws:
Other laws allow BLM to retain certain proceeds from federal land sales
and share them among agencies for land acquisitions, as well as other
purposes. The most notable of these is the Southern Nevada Public Land
Management Act of 1998 (SNPLMA).[Footnote 14] SNPLMA's stated purpose
is to "provide for the orderly disposal of certain federal lands in
Clark County, Nevada, and to provide for the acquisition of
environmentally sensitive land in the State of Nevada."[Footnote 15]
Since enactment, SNPLMA has generated just under $3 billion in revenue.
As of September 2007, a portion of this revenue has been spent, in
part, to complete 41 land acquisition projects in Nevada for a total of
$129.1 million. Unlike FLTFA, SNPLMA has no expiration date and its
sales receipts are placed in an interest bearing account. However, it
has fewer acres available for disposal than FLTFA.
FLTFA Requirements on Use of Revenue and Other Key Provisions:
FLTFA places a number of requirements on the use of revenue generated
under the act. Among these requirements, BLM must provide 4 percent of
sale proceeds to the state in which revenue was raised for education
and transportation purposes.[Footnote 16] Figure 2 illustrates these
requirements using an example of $1 million in revenue.
Figure 2: Requirements for Using FLTFA Revenue:
This figure is a flowchart showing requirements for using FLTFA
revenue.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of FLTA and BLM's Instruction Memorandum No. 2002-
205, September 25, 2007.
Note: With the exception of the amount designated for inholdings, the
steps depicted in this figure under the 96 percent deposited into the
FLTFA account are subactivity accounts established in BLM's Federal
Financial System to record the fund allocations as authorized by FLTFA.
[End of figure]
FLTFA also limits land acquisitions to land within and adjacent to
federally designated areas, such as national parks, national forests,
and national conservation areas. While most lands managed by the Fish
and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, and the Park Service are
federally designated areas, many of the lands managed by BLM are not
federally designated areas; therefore, acquisitions within undesignated
lands would not qualify under FLTFA.
Furthermore, FLTFA requires that the Secretaries establish a procedure
to identify and set priorities for acquiring inholdings. As part of
this process, it called for the Secretaries to consider (1) the date
the inholding was established, (2) the extent to which the acquisition
would facilitate management efficiency, and (3) other criteria
identified by the Secretaries. The act also requires a public notice be
published in the Federal Register detailing the procedures for
identifying inholdings and setting priorities for them and other
information about the program.
Memorandum of Understanding Implements FLTFA:
To improve FLTFA implementation, the four agencies signed a national
MOU. Among other things, the MOU established a Land Transaction
Facilitation Council, which consists of the heads of the four agencies
and the U.S. Department of the Interior Assistant Secretary for Policy,
Management, and Budget to oversee the implementation and coordination
of activities undertaken pursuant to the MOU. The MOU also directed the
agencies to establish state-level implementation plans that would
establish roles and responsibilities, procedures for interagency
coordination, and field-level processes for identifying land
acquisition recommendations and setting priorities for these
recommendations.
Proposed Amendments to FLTFA:
The Administration has proposed revising and extending the act.
Specifically, the U.S. Department of the Interior's fiscal year 2007
and 2008 budgets included proposals to:
* allow BLM to use updated land use plans to identify areas suitable
for disposal,
* allow a portion of receipts to be used by BLM for restoration
projects,
* require BLM to return 70 percent of net proceeds from eligible sales
to the U.S. Treasury, and:
* cap retention of receipts at $60 million per year.
In addition, the U.S. Department of the Interior called for Congress to
extend the FLTFA program to 2018.
BLM Has Raised Most FLTFA Revenue from Land Sales in Nevada:
Since FLTFA was enacted in 2000, BLM has raised $95.7 million in
revenue, mostly by selling 16,659 acres. As of May 2007, about 92
percent of the revenue raised, or $88 million, has come from land sales
in Nevada--1 of the 11 western states under FLTFA. Nevada accounts for
most of the sales because of rapidly expanding population centers
coupled with a high percentage of BLM land in the state and experience
selling land under the SNPLMA program. Most BLM field offices have not
generated revenue under FLTFA.
BLM Has Raised $95.7 Million from FLTFA Land Sales, Primarily in Two
Nevada Field Offices:
Between July 2000 and May 2007, BLM raised $95.7 million in revenue for
selling 16,659 acres, according to data verified by BLM state offices.
In addition, the BLM Division of Business Services reports exchange
equalization payments totaling $3.4 million. Nevada has accounted for
the great majority of the sales. As of May 2007, about 92 percent of
the revenue raised, or $88 million, has come from land transactions in
Nevada. More specifically, the Carson City and Las Vegas field offices
generated a total of $86.2 million, or 90 percent of all revenue
generated under FLTFA, mostly through a few competitive sales. For
example, the Carson City Field Office raised $39.1 million through 3
sales and Las Vegas Field Office raised $33.6 million through 7 sales.
Table 1 shows the state-by-state totals of sales revenue generated,
acres sold, and number of sales. See appendix II for a listing of
completed sales BLM state offices have reported to us.
Table 1: BLM Reported FLTFA Cumulative Revenue from Sales by State,
July 25, 2000, through May 31, 2007:
State: Arizona;
Cumulative sales revenue: 54,102; Acres sold: 28;
Number of sales: 2.
State: California;
Cumulative sales revenue: 235,010; Acres sold: 215;
Number of sales: 10.
State: Colorado;
Cumulative sales revenue: 939,856; Acres sold: 243;
Number of sales: 25.
State: Idaho;
Cumulative sales revenue: 180,740; Acres sold: 206;
Number of sales: 9.
State: Montana;
Cumulative sales revenue: 59,000; Acres sold: 53;
Number of sales: 3.
State: Nevada;
Cumulative sales revenue: 88,010,041; Acres sold: 5,399;
Number of sales: 106.
State: New Mexico;
Cumulative sales revenue: 4,052,800; Acres sold: 778;
Number of sales: 14.
State: Oregon (includes Washington state); Cumulative sales revenue:
1,103,485; Acres sold: 8,501;
Number of sales: 82.
State: Utah;
Cumulative sales revenue: 177,000; Acres sold: 26;
Number of sales: 1.
State: Wyoming;
Cumulative sales revenue: 840,085; Acres sold: 1,209;
Number of sales: 13.
State: Total;
Cumulative sales revenue: $95,652,119; Acres sold: 16,659;
Number of sales: 265.
Source: GAO analysis of BLM Division of Business Services data verified
by BLM state offices.
Notes: Numbers may not add due to rounding. The revenue numbers
provided in this table are before the 4 percent payment to states has
been deducted and include only land sale revenue. The Division of
Business Services reports exchange equalization payments in these
states totaling about $3.4 million, which are also available for FLTFA
land acquisitions.
[End of table]
Some of BLM's Nevada field offices, particularly Las Vegas and Carson
City, have been in a unique position to raise the most funds under
FLTFA to date because of rapidly expanding populations, development in
those areas, and the availability of nearby BLM land. In addition, BLM
Nevada staff had previous experience with SNPLMA, the land sales
program in the Las Vegas area. In fact, the Nevada office used
procedures and staff from this program to initiate FLTFA's sales and
acquisition programs. According to Nevada state office officials, BLM's
annual work plan for lands and realty work specifically directed the
Nevada office to continue to hold FLTFA and SNPLMA land sales as
appropriate.
Revenue from land sales and exchanges under FLTFA grew slowly in the
first years of the program but picked up in fiscal years 2004 and 2005,
with $16.6 million and $4.8 million, respectively. Revenue reached a
peak in fiscal year 2006, when a total of $71.1 million was collected.
BLM officials said the land sales market in Nevada has cooled since its
peak in 2006. Figure 3 shows the FLTFA revenue through May 2007.
Figure 3: FLTFA Revenue by Fiscal Year, through May 31, 2007:
This figure is a bar chart showing FLTFA revenue by fiscal year,
through May 31, 2007.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of BLM's Division of Business Services data
verified by BLM state offices.
Notes: Fiscal year 2007 reflects revenue collected through May 31.
Since buyers have 180 days to make final payment, some collections are
for sales that occurred in the prior fiscal year. Because the FLTFA
account was not established until February 2002, funds collected from
sales and exchanges in FY 2000 and FY 2001 are included in FY 2002. In
addition, we aggregated the revenue for each sale as of the most recent
collection date (e.g., if a particular land sale had collections in
2003 and 2004, the total amount collected was included in the 2004
total).
[End of figure]
The FLTFA account benefits from the proceeds of all types of
transactions, including land exchanges and land sales made on a
competitive, modified competitive, or direct basis. BLM sets the
appraised fair market value as the sales price for direct sales and as
the minimum bid price for competitive sales. Of the 265 completed sales
reported by BLM state offices, 149 were competitive, 33 were modified
competitive, and 83 were direct. In terms of FLTFA revenue, the great
majority, about 96 percent, has been raised from competitive sales. For
example, in December 2005, the Las Vegas Field Office sold a 40-acre
parcel through a competitive auction for $7.3 million, or 152 percent
of its appraised fair market value of $4.8 million. On a much smaller
scale in a December 2006 competitive auction, the Burns District Office
in Oregon sold 240 acres for $47,000, or 163 percent of its appraised
fair market value of $28,800. In 2006, the Carson City Field Office
offered two parcels of about 100 and 106 acres with appraised fair
market values of $10 million and $6.4 million, respectively, in north
Douglas County, Nevada, just south of the Carson City limits. The
former BLM parcels are contiguous and across a major highway from three
shopping centers. Through competitive auctions, BLM received final
prices of $16.1 million and $8.4 million, or 161 and 131 percent,
respectively, of appraised value. Figure 4 shows areas in these two
parcels.
Figure 4: Two BLM Parcels Near Carson City, Nevada, Sold for a Total of
$24.5 Million:
This figure is a photograph of two BLM parcels near Carson City,
Nevada, which sold for a total of $24.5 million.
[See PDF for image]
Source: BLM Carson City Field Office.
Notes: In the 106-acre parcel on the left, the area left of the roadway
was zoned for commercial development. In the 100-acre parcel on the
right, the land to the right of the roadway was zoned primarily for
residential development.
[End of figure]
According to a GAO analysis of data from BLM's Division of Business
Services and BLM state offices on land sales revenue collected in the
FLTFA account, only 12 of 144 field offices have conducted competitive
sales. An additional 28 field offices have generated FLTFA revenue
through direct or modified competitive sales. The remaining 104 offices
have not generated sales revenue for the FLTFA account. Table 2 shows
FLTFA sales by the method used and the amount of revenue generated.
Table 2: Number of Sales and Revenue Raised by Competitive, Modified
Competitive, and Direct Sales under FLTFA, as of May 31, 2007:
Dollars in millions.
Competitive;
Number of sales: 149;
Revenue collected: $91.4;
Number of field offices reporting: 12.
Modified competitive;
Number of sales: 33;
Revenue collected: 1.0;
Number of field offices reporting: 6.
Direct;
Number of sales: 83;
Revenue collected: 3.2;
Number of field offices reporting: 33.
Total;
Number of sales: 265;
Revenue collected: $95.7;
Number of field offices reporting: [A].
Source: GAO analysis of BLM's Division of Business Services data
verified by BLM state offices.
Note: Revenue column does not add due to rounding.
[A] No total reported because each field office may use more than one
method of sale.
[End of table]
Using the data provided by BLM state offices on completed FLTFA sales
as of May 31, 2007, we determined that the actual sales prices of the
parcels sold exceeded the appraised fair market value of those parcels
by 52 percent.
BLM Faces Several Challenges to Future Sales under FLTFA:
BLM state and field office officials most frequently cited the
availability of knowledgeable realty staff to conduct the sales as a
challenge to raising revenue from FLTFA sales. These staff may not be
available because they are working on activities that BLM has
identified as a higher priority, such as reviewing and approving energy
rights-of-way. We identified two additional issues hampering land sales
activity under FLTFA. First, while BLM has identified land for sale in
its land use plans, it has not made the sale of this land a priority
during the first 7 years of the program. Furthermore, BLM has not set
goals for FLTFA sales. Goals are an effective management tool for
measuring and achieving results. Some BLM state offices reported that
they have planned FLTFA sales through 2010, but BLM has no overall
implementation strategy to generate funds to purchase inholdings, as
mandated by FLTFA. Since BLM has not laid out a clear roadmap for FLTFA
and did not make land sales a priority, it is difficult to determine if
BLM took full advantage of the opportunities for generating revenue
under the act. Second, BLM has revised some of its land use plans since
2000 and identified additional land for disposal. However, revenue from
these potential sales is not eligible for the FLTFA account because the
act only applies to land that was identified for disposal in a land use
plan on or before the date of the act.
BLM State and Field Officials Most Frequently Cited Availability of
Knowledgeable Staff as a Challenge to Conducting FLTFA Sales:
According to BLM state and field officials, they face five challenges
to raising FLTFA revenue through sales. First, the most frequently
identified is the availability of knowledgeable realty staff to conduct
the sales. This challenge is followed, in order of frequency cited, by
the time, cost, and complexity of the land sales process; external
factors, such as public opposition to a sale; program and legal
restrictions; and the land use planning process. Except for FLTFA-
specific program and legal restrictions, the other challenges that BLM
state and field offices cited are probably faced in many public land
sales. The following provides examples of these challenges:
* The availability of knowledgeable realty staff to conduct the sales.
BLM staff said realty staff must address higher priority work before
land sales. For example, Colorado BLM staff said that processing rights-
of-way for energy pipelines takes a huge amount of realty staff time,
100 percent in some field offices, and poses one of the top challenges
to carrying out FLTFA sales in Colorado. In Idaho, staff also cited the
lack of realty staffing, which is down 40 percent from 10 years ago.
Adding to the staffing issue, the workload for energy- related uses in
Idaho, such as approving rights-of-way for transmission lines, has
doubled. Other offices cited turnover in staff and the lack of staff
with training and experience to conduct sales.
* Time, cost, and complexity of the sales process. Much preparation
must be completed before a property can be sold. For example, several
offices cited the cost and length of the process that ensures a sale
complies with environmental laws and regulations. In addition,
obtaining clearances from experts related to cultural and natural
resources on a proposed sale can be time-consuming. For example, in the
sale of 396 acres by the Las Cruces District Office, officials said
that the sale of the property was delayed by the discovery of a
significant cultural resource on the site. This was eventually resolved
by BLM retaining the small portion of the original parcel containing
the cultural resource.
* External factors. BLM officials cited such factors such as public
opposition to a sale, market conditions, or lack of political support
as challenges. For example, Colorado BLM officials said that they have
faced strong local opposition to sales, and the El Centro Field Office
staff in California cited the lack of demand for the land from buyers
as a challenge. Some offices have experienced diminishing support of
sales by local governments over the time a sale is prepared.
* Program and legal restrictions. The Arizona State Office staff and
the Elko Field Office staff cited the sunset date of FLTFA, less than 3
years away, as a challenge because the sunset date may not allow enough
time to complete many more sales. Other offices said the MOU provision
requiring a portion of the land sale proceeds to be used by the three
other agencies reduces BLM's incentive to do land sales because BLM
keeps only 60 percent of the revenue. Another challenge to the disposal
of land under FLTFA, especially in Nevada, has been the passage of land
bills for Lincoln and White Pine counties. The Lincoln County Land Act
of 2000, as amended, directs BLM to deposit most of the proceeds from
the disposal of not more than 103,328 acres into an account established
by the act. The White Pine County Conservation, Recreation, and
Development Act of 2006 directs BLM to deposit most of the proceeds
from the disposal of not more than 45,000 acres into a similar account.
In total, BLM staff estimate that, once mandated land use plan
amendments are completed, the two acts will result in the removal of
about 148,000 acres from FLTFA eligibility.
* Land use planning. Some offices cited problems with the land use
plans. For example, the Idaho Falls District Office staff said that
specific land for sale is hard to identify in old land use plans.
Nevada's Elko Field Office staff said that some lands that could be
offered for sale were not available because they were not designated in
the land use plan at the time of FLTFA's enactment.
Most BLM States Have Planned FLTFA Sales through 2010, but BLM Lacks
National Goals for the Program:
BLM state offices reported planning FLTFA sales through 2010, but BLM
has not established national goals for FLTFA or emphasized sales.
BLM Plans FLTFA Sales through 2010:
In response to our request to the 10 BLM state offices participating in
FLTFA, 8 reported planning 96 FLTFA sales totaling 25,406 acres through
2010. The other two state offices reported no planned sales. Of the 96
planned sales, 34 are planned as competitive, 6 as modified
competitive, and 52 as direct sales; the sales methods for 4 sales are
unknown. The BLM state offices did not report a fair market value for
some of these planned sales. Table 3 provides information on planned
FLTFA sales and appendix III provides a complete listing of the planned
sales that BLM state offices reported.
Table 3: BLM Reported Planned FLTFA Sales, through 2010:
BLM state office: Arizona;
Competitive: 3;
Direct: 2;
Modified competitive: 1;
Undetermined: 2;
Total planned sales: 8;
Total acres: 2,640.
BLM state office: California;
Competitive: 1;
Direct: 4;
Modified competitive: 0;
Undetermined: 0;
Total planned sales: 5;
Total acres: 251.
BLM state office: Colorado;
Competitive: 1;
Direct: 15;
Modified competitive: 0;
Undetermined: 1;
Total planned sales: 17;
Total acres: 136.
BLM state office: Idaho;
Competitive: 2;
Direct: 13;
Modified competitive: 1;
Undetermined: 0;
Total planned sales: 16;
Total acres: 4,242.
BLM state office: Montana;
Competitive: 0;
Direct: 0;
Modified competitive: 0;
Undetermined: 0;
Total planned sales: 0;
Total acres: 0.
BLM state office: Nevada;
Competitive: 17;
Direct: 7;
Modified competitive: 1;
Undetermined: 0;
Total planned sales: 25;
Total acres: 14,570.
BLM state office: New Mexico;
Competitive: 7;
Direct: 2;
Modified competitive: 0;
Undetermined: 0;
Total planned sales: 9;
Total acres: 1,273.
BLM state office: Oregon/Washington; Competitive: 0;
Direct: 0;
Modified competitive: 0;
Undetermined: 0;
Total planned sales: 0;
Total acres: 0.
BLM state office: Utah;
Competitive: 1;
Direct: 4;
Modified competitive: 1;
Undetermined: 0;
Total planned sales: 6;
Total acres: 412.
BLM state office: Wyoming;
Competitive: 2;
Direct: 5;
Modified competitive: 2;
Undetermined: 1;
Total planned sales: 10;
Total acres: 1,880.
Total;
Competitive: 34;
Direct: 52;
Modified competitive: 6;
Undetermined: 4;
Total planned sales: 96;
Total acres: 25,406.
Source: GAO analysis of information reported by BLM state offices.
Notes: Total acres column does not add due to rounding. An estimate of
the expected total revenue from these sales was not available because
all fair market values were not reported by the state offices.
[End of table]
Figure 5 shows an example of a planned sale--the "North Fork" parcel to
be sold competitively in April 2008 by the field office in Las Cruces,
New Mexico. This 167-acre parcel is on the eastern edge of Las Cruces
across the street from residential subdivisions. BLM also plans to sell
a similar adjacent 180-acre parcel at the same time. The field office
reported that the purpose of these sales is to dispose of land that
will serve important public objectives, including but not limited to,
expansion of communities and economic development, which cannot be
achieved prudently or feasibly on land other than public land.
Figure 5: BLM "North Fork" 167-Acre Parcel on the Eastern Edge of Las
Cruces, New Mexico, Planned for Competitive Sale in an April 2008
Auction:
This figure is a photo of BLM "North Fork" 167-acre parcel on the
eastern edge of Las Cruces, New Mexico, planned for competitive sale in
an April 2008 auction.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Although BLM offices plan sales, there is no assurance that these sales
will occur. For fiscal years 2004 and 2005, BLM headquarters compiled a
list of 100 planned sales under FLTFA from information the state
offices provided. Because BLM headquarters did not know the status of
these 100 planned sales, we followed up with the state offices and
determined that 54 were actually completed. According to BLM's state
office leads for these sales, 46 properties did not sell for several
reasons, such as environmental concerns; external factors; the
availability of staff; and the time, cost, and complexity of the sales.
For example, Utah State Office officials said a 1,450-acre parcel near
St. George did not sell because threatened and endangered species and
cultural resource issues were identified. In Wyoming, state office
staff said only one of four proposed sales occurred because of
inadequate staffing and the competing priority to address oil and gas-
related realty issues.
BLM Has Not Established Goals or an Implementation Strategy for FLTFA
Sales:
BLM has established annual goals for the disposal of land through sales
or other means.[Footnote 18] For example, BLM's fiscal year 2008 budget
justification contained a performance target to dispose of 11,500 acres
and 30,000 acres of land in fiscal years 2007 and 2008, respectively.
However, BLM has not established similar goals for FLTFA sales. For
example, BLM's fiscal year 2007 annual work plan for the lands and
realty function--which guides the activities to be completed in a given
year--does not contain specific goals for FLTFA. Rather, it states that
lands and realty staff should continue to hold land sales under FLTFA,
especially in Nevada.
BLM did provide an estimate in its fiscal year 2008 budget
justification for FLTFA revenue--$12 million in fiscal year 2007 and
$50 million in 2008. However, BLM fell short of its estimate for fiscal
year 2007; it reported generating only $0.7 million from sales and
exchanges. Moreover, when we asked BLM headquarters staff for the basis
of the fiscal year 2007 and 2008 revenue estimates, they said the
estimates were based on professional judgment and that they had no
supporting information.[Footnote 19]
Our interviews with state and field office staff confirmed that there
are few goals for conducting FLTFA sales. According to 27 of the 28
state and field office officials we spoke with, BLM headquarters had
not provided any goals; one state office said headquarters had
emphasized getting their land disposal program up and running in their
office. According to 18 of these 28 officials, their state and field
office management had set no targets or goals for FLTFA land sales. Of
the 10 that did mention such goals, 8 described the goal as a plan to
sell specific parcels of land.
According to headquarters officials, BLM has tried to encourage FLTFA
sales but is not pressuring field offices to conduct them, and there is
no ongoing headquarters effort to oversee and manage sales because
states are responsible for conducting their own sales programs. The
realty managers explained that headquarters does not approve land sales
but is aware of them through reviews of Federal Register notices of the
sales. According to a headquarters official, BLM did not establish
FLTFA goals because BLM lacked realty staff to conduct land sales and
other impediments to sales generally, such as the lack of access,
mineral leases, mining claims, threatened or endangered species
habitat, floodplains, wetlands, cultural resources, hazardous
materials, and title problems.
The establishment of goals is an effective management tool for
measuring and achieving results. As we have reported in the past on
management under the Government Performance and Results Act of
1993,[Footnote 20] leading public sector organizations pursuing results-
oriented management commonly took the following key steps:
* defined clear missions and desired outcomes,
* measured performance to gauge progress, and:
* used performance information as a basis for decision making.
BLM has not fully implemented these steps in managing the FLTFA program
to sell land designated for disposal in its land use plans. To measure
BLM's success in generating revenue and disposing of land under FLTFA,
actual performance would need to be compared with national sales goals
for FLTFA. Without national goals for making these sales a priority, it
is difficult for BLM to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of
federal land management as called for in FLTFA through the acquisition
of inholdings and consolidation of public lands.
FLTFA's Restriction on Land Available for Sale Reduces Potential
Revenue:
FLTFA requires BLM to deposit the proceeds into the special FLTFA
account from the sale or exchange of public land identified for
disposal under approved land use plans in effect on the date of its
enactment.[Footnote 21] Other proceeds from land sales and exchanges
are typically deposited into the U.S. Treasury's general account. Many
of BLM's land use plans have been revised or have been proposed for
revision since FLTFA's enactment, and additional lands have been
identified for disposal. For example, BLM reported the Boise District
Office in Idaho is currently planning a sale of 35 parcels. Five of the
35 parcels, with a total estimated value of $10.7 million, are not
FLTFA eligible. Because of the land use plan restriction, revenue from
these five sales would not benefit the FLTFA account when sold. While
this restriction reduces the potential revenue that could be dedicated
to purchasing inholdings and adjacent land containing exceptional
resources under FLTFA, it does benefit the U.S. Treasury's general
account.
According to 17 of the 28 BLM state and field realty staff we
interviewed, their office has land available for disposal that is not
designated in an FLTFA-eligible land use plan. For example, New Mexico
state office officials said that a number of land use plan amendments
completed or under development since FLTFA's enactment have identified
land for disposal. They noted that the Las Cruces area land use plan is
being amended to adjust to the new direction of the city's growth that
has occurred since the last plan was prepared in 1993. According to BLM
New Mexico staff, different or additional lands are expected to be
designated for disposal in the amended plan. Figure 6 shows land on the
west side of Las Cruces, New Mexico, that is expected to be designated
for disposal in the forthcoming revision to accommodate the community's
growth. Field office officials said that input from local governments
and other interests have focused land sales growth in Las Cruces on the
west side of the city in order to create a buffer for the Organ
Mountains on the east side.
Figure 6: A View of the West Mesa BLM Property in Las Cruces, New
Mexico, That Will Be Added to Land Designated for Disposal in the
Revised Land Use Plan:
This figure is a photograph of a view of the West Mesa BLM property in
Las Cruces, New Mexico. This will be added to land designated for
disposal in the revised land use plan.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Agencies Have Purchased Few Parcels with FLTFA Revenue:
Since the enactment of FLTFA 7 years ago, BLM reports that the four
land management agencies have spent $13.3 million of the $95.7 million
in FLTFA revenue--$10.1 million to acquire nine parcels of land and
$3.2 million in administrative expenses for conducting FLTFA sales.
Agencies spent the $10.9 million between August 2007 and January 2008
on the first land acquisitions completed under FLTFA using the
secretarial discretion provided in the MOU. As of May 31, 2007, the
agencies reported submitting eight acquisition nominations to state-
level interagency teams for consideration. The New Mexico interagency
team reported submitting six additional nominations as of July 1, 2007.
None of these 14 nominations--valued at $71.9 million--has resulted in
a completed acquisition. The state-level process has not yet resulted
in acquisitions because of the time taken to complete interagency
agreements and limited FLTFA funds available for acquisition outside of
Nevada. Although Nevada has proposed five acquisitions, none have been
completed. As for the remaining $3.2 million in expenditures, BLM
reports spending these funds on administrative activities involved in
preparing land for sale under FLTFA mostly between 2004 and 2007. BLM
offices in Nevada spent $2.6 million of this total.
Under a Secretarial Initiative, BLM Reports Agencies Spent $10.1
Million on the First Land Acquisitions 7 Years after FLTFA Was Enacted:
No land acquisitions had occurred during the first 7 years of FLTFA.
Because the state-level implementation process had not resulted in any
acquisitions, BLM decided to jump-start the acquisition program and
conduct purchases under secretarial discretion, as provided for in the
MOU. In the spring of 2006, BLM headquarters officials solicited
nominations from the FLTFA leads in each of the other three agencies.
Most of the nominations agency officials provided were previously
submitted for funding under LWCF. This secretarial initiative was
approved by the Secretaries of Agriculture and of the Interior in May
2007.
The 2007 secretarial initiative provided $18 million in funding for 13
land acquisition projects, including 19 parcels of land located in
seven states--Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Oregon,
and Wyoming. Specifically, the initiative consisted of 9,049 acres and
included projects for each agency: six BLM projects for $10.15 million,
two Fish and Wildlife Service projects for $1.75 million, two Forest
Service projects for $3.5 million, and three Park Service projects for
$2.6 million. Only 1 of the 19 parcels is an adjacent land; the rest
are inholdings.
Since the initiative was approved, BLM reported a number of changes
that the agencies made to the original list of land acquisition
projects. For example, the total number of acres increased to 9,987 in
a total of eight states. As of January 23, 2008, BLM reported that the
agencies had wholly or partially completed 8 of the 13 approved
acquisition projects. Specifically, the agencies spent $10.1 million
between August 2007 and January 2008 to complete the acquisition of the
first nine parcels under the secretarial initiative.[Footnote 22] The
acquisitions include 3,381 acres in seven states--Arizona, California,
Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, and Wyoming. See table 4 for a
complete description of the current status of these projects.
Table 4: Status of FLTFA Land Acquisition Projects Approved under the
Secretarial Initiative, as of January 23, 2008:
Agency: BLM;
State: California;
Federally designated area: Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard Area of
Critical Environmental Concern[A]; Acres: 321;
FLTFA funding: $850,000;
Status: Complete.
Agency: BLM;
State: Colorado;
Federally designated area: Canyons of the Ancients National Monument;
Acres: 469;
FLTFA funding: 500,000;
Status: Incomplete.
Agency: BLM;
State: Idaho;
Federally designated area: Snake River Area of Critical Environmental
Concern[B]; Acres: 1,674;
FLTFA funding: 4,700,000;
Status: Partially complete[C].
Agency: BLM;
State: New Mexico;
Federally designated area: La Cienega Area of Critical Environmental
Concern; El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail;
Acres: 178;
FLTFA funding: 2,200,000;
Status: Complete.
Agency: BLM;
State: Oregon;
Federally designated area: Rogue National Wild and Scenic River; Acres:
32;
FLTFA funding: 600,000;
Status: Incomplete.
Agency: BLM;
State: Wyoming;
Federally designated area: North Platte River Special Recreation
Management Area; California National Historic Trail; Mormon Pioneer
National Historic Trail; Pony Express National Historic Trail; Oregon
National Historic Trail; Acres: 277;
FLTFA funding: 1,300,000;
Status: Complete.
Agency: Subtotal;
State: [Empty];
Federally designated area: [Empty]; Acres: 2,951;
FLTFA funding: $10,150,000;
Status: [Empty].
Agency: Fish and Wildlife Service; State: Montana;
Federally designated area: Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge;
Acres: 2,159;
FLTFA funding: 1,425,000;
Status: Complete[D].
Agency: Fish and Wildlife Service; State: Oregon;
Federally designated area: Siletz Bay National Wildlife Refuge; Acres:
42;
FLTFA funding: 325,000;
Status: Partially complete[E].
Subtotal;
State: [Empty];
Federally designated area: [Empty]; Acres: 2,201;
FLTFA funding: $1,750,000;
Status: [Empty].
Agency: Forest Service;
State: Arizona;
Federally designated area: Tonto National Forest; Acres: 11;
FLTFA funding: 635,000;
Status: Agency: Complete.
Agency: Forest Service;
State: California;
Federally designated area: Six Rivers National Forest; Smith River
National Recreation Area; Goose Creek National Wild and Scenic River;
Acres: 4,303;
FLTFA funding: 2,865,000;
Status: Incomplete.
Subtotal;
State: [Empty];
Federally designated area: [Empty]; Acres: 4,314;
FLTFA funding: $3,500,000;
Status: [Empty].
Agency: Park Service;
State: Idaho;
Federally designated area: Nez Perce National Historic Park; Nez Perce
National Historic Trail; Acres: 510;
FLTFA funding: 200,000;
Status: Agency: Incomplete[F].
Agency: Park Service;
State: New Mexico;
Federally designated area: Aztec Ruins National Monument; Acres: 10;
FLTFA funding: 200,000;
Status: Agency: Incomplete.
Agency: Park Service;
State: Wyoming;
Federally designated area: Grand Teton National Park; Acres: 1;
FLTFA funding: 2,200,000;
Status: Agency Subtotal: Complete.
Subtotal;
State: [Empty];
Federally designated area: [Empty]; Acres: 521;
FLTFA funding: $2,600,000;
Status: [Empty].
Total;
State: [Empty];
Federally designated area: [Empty]; Acres: 9,987[G];
FLTFA funding: $18,000,000;
Status: [Empty].
Source: GAO analysis of information provided by BLM headquarters.
[A] This is the only property in the secretarial initiative that is
adjacent to federal land; the rest are inholdings.
[B] Five parcels are included in this project. In addition, BLM has
added one 300-acre parcel valued at $500,000 to the list of parcels
under this project. The BLM FLTFA program lead said this parcel was
included because of its high resource value but added that the agencies
will remain within the $18 million spending level approved by the
Secretaries. Of these six parcels, five totaling 1,872 acres will be
acquired through easement, and one totaling 102 acres will be acquired
in fee.
[C] As of January 23, 2008, a 102-acre parcel had been acquired in fee
and an easement had been acquired on a 300-acre parcel.
[D] BLM reports that an acquisition at the Arapaho National Wildlife
Refuge originally included in this secretarial initiative failed due to
expired options on the property. The Director of the Fish and Wildlife
Service has substituted an acquisition at the Red Rock Lakes National
Wildlife Refuge for the same amount of funding.
[E] Two parcels are included in this project.
[F] Two parcels, both for easements, are included in this project.
[G] Some of the acres acquired or planned for acquisition were funded
in part by sources other than FLTFA: the Land and Water Conservation
Fund and the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund.
[End of table]
Figure 7 shows part of the acquisition site within the La Cienega Area
of Critical Environmental Concern. According to BLM, it selected this
site for acquisition because (1) it is an archeologically rich area
preserving ancient rock art and (2) the riparian cottonwood and willow
forest that line the Santa Fe River and its La Cienega Creek tributary
provide critical habitat for threatened and endangered wildlife, such
as the bald eagle and southwest willow flycatcher. The final purchase
price was $2.2 million.
Figure 7: Part of an Inholding in the BLM La Cienega Area of Critical
Environmental Concern That Has Been Acquired with FLTFA Funding:
This figure is a photograph of part of an inholding in the BLM La
Cienega area of critical environmental concern that has been acquired
with FLTFA funding.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
To fund the acquisitions in the secretarial initiative of $18 million,
the BLM FLTFA program lead told us that the Secretaries approved the
use of:
* $14.5 million of the funds from the 20 percent of revenue available
for acquisitions outside the state in which they were raised, and:
* $3.5 million of the revenue not used for administrative activities
supporting the land sales program.[Footnote 23]
Agencies Have Submitted Nominations under the State-Level Process, But
None Have Resulted in a Land Acquisition:
In addition to the acquisitions in the secretarial initiative, the
agencies have submitted 14 acquisition nominations valued at $71.1
million to state-level interagency teams for consideration, but not one
has resulted in a completed acquisition. Of the $14.1 million in land
acquisitions awaiting a secretarial decision, $13.7 million, or 97
percent, is for inholdings and $458,000 million--or 3 percent--is for
adjacent land. Table 5 shows the data we gathered from BLM state
offices on the status of the nominations that have been submitted.
Table 5: FLTFA Land Acquisition Nominations Reviewed by State-Level
Interagency Teams, as of May 31, 2007 A:
Agency: BLM;
State: Arizona;
Federally designated area: Hells Canyon Wilderness; Inholding or
adjacent land: Inholding; Acres: 640;
Requested amount[B]: $3,000,000; State-level interagency decision:
Approved; If approved, status of secretarial approval, as of November
30, 2007: Not yet submitted.
Agency: BLM;
State: California;
Federally designated area: Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard Area of
Critical Environmental Concern; Inholding or adjacent land: Adjacent;
Acres: 301;
Requested amount[B]: 458,000[C]; State-level interagency decision:
Approved; If approved, status of secretarial approval, as of November
30, 2007: Pending.
Agency: BLM;
State: Nevada;
Federally designated area: Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area;
Inholding or adjacent land: Inholding;
Acres: 80;
Requested amount[B]: 16,015,000; State-level interagency decision:
Approved; If approved, status of secretarial approval, as of November
30, 2007: Approved.
Agency: BLM;
State: Nevada;
Federally designated area: Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest;
Inholding or adjacent land: Adjacent;
Acres: 320;
Requested amount[B]: 29,126,000;
State-level interagency decision: Approved;
If approved, status of secretarial approval, as of November 30, 2007:
Withdrawn.
Agency: BLM;
State: New Mexico;
Federally designated area: Gila Lower Box Area of Critical
Environmental Concern;
Inholding or adjacent land: Adjacent;
Acres: 1,880;
Requested amount[B]: 2,055,000;
State-level interagency decision: Denied[D];
If approved, status of secretarial approval, as of November 30, 2007: -
.
Agency: BLM;
State: New Mexico;
Federally designated area: Continental Divide National Scenic Trail;
Inholding or adjacent land: Inholding;
Acres: 5,000;
Requested amount[B]: 1,530,825;
State-level interagency decision: Denied[E];
If approved, status of secretarial approval, as of November 30, 2007: -
.
Agency: BLM;
State: New Mexico;
Federally designated area: Elk Springs Area of Critical Environmental
Concern;
Inholding or adjacent land: Inholding;
Acres: 2,280;
Requested amount[B]: 1,810,000;
State-level interagency decision: Approved;
If approved, status of secretarial approval, as of November 30, 2007:
Pending.
Agency: Forest Service;
State: Nevada;
Federally designated area: Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest;
Inholding or adjacent land: Inholding;
Acres: 320;
Requested amount[B]: 1,230,000;
State-level interagency decision: Approved;
If approved, status of secretarial approval, as of November 30, 2007:
Approved[F].
Agency: Forest Service;
State: Nevada;
Federally designated area: Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest;
Inholding or adjacent land: Inholding;
Acres: 385;
Requested amount[B]: 3,530,000;
State-level interagency decision: Approved;
If approved, status of secretarial approval, as of November 30, 2007:
Approved[F].
Agency: Forest Service;
State: Nevada;
Federally designated area: Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest;
Inholding or adjacent land: Inholding;
Acres: 40;
Requested amount[B]: 10,624,500;
State-level interagency decision: Approved;
If approved, status of secretarial approval, as of November 30, 2007:
Pending.
Agency: Forest Service;
State: New Mexico;
Federally designated area: Cibola National Forest;
Inholding or adjacent land: Inholding; Acres: 160;
Requested amount[B]: 160,000;
State-level interagency decision: Denied[G];
If approved, status of secretarial approval, as of November 30, 2007: -
.
Agency: Forest Service;
State: New Mexico;
Federally designated area: Santa Fe National Forest;
Inholding or adjacent land: Inholding;
Acres: 160;
Requested amount[B]: 660,000;
State-level interagency decision: Approved;
If approved, status of secretarial approval, as of November 30, 2007:
Pending.
Agency: Forest Service;
State: New Mexico;
Federally designated area: Santa Fe National Forest;
Inholding or adjacent land: Inholding;
Acres: 160;
Requested amount[B]: 560,000;
State-level interagency decision: Approved;
If approved, status of secretarial approval, as of November 30, 2007:
Pending.
Agency: Forest Service;
State: Wyoming;
Federally designated area: Bridger-Teton National Forest;
Inholding or adjacent land: Adjacent;
Acres: 40;
Requested amount[B]: 388,600[H];
State-level interagency decision: Pending;
If approved, status of secretarial approval, as of November 30, 2007: -
.
Total;
State: [Empty];
Federally designated area: [Empty];
Inholding or adjacent land: [Empty];
Acres: 11,766;
Requested amount[B]: $71,147,925;
State-level interagency decision: [Empty];
If approved, status of secretarial approval, as of November 30, 2007:
[Empty].
Source: GAO analysis of information provided by BLM state offices.
[A] Although we requested information that had been updated as of May
31, 2007, the New Mexico interagency team provided information updated
as of July 1, 2007. To provide the most current information, we are
including the nominations included in the July 1, 2007 data.
[B] Requested amount includes the estimated value of the parcel and, in
some cases, administrative costs associated with the acquisition.
[C] The total value of this acquisition is estimated at $975,000. BLM
plans to use LWCF funding to cover the remaining $517,000.
[D] This nomination was denied because it is not immediately adjacent
to a federally designated area.
[E] While BLM nominated this parcel for acquisition, it was denied
because the state interagency team determined this parcel is an
inholding within a national forest.
[F] This acquisition was approved by the Secretaries but was ultimately
terminated due to negotiating issues with the seller.
[G] This nomination was denied because it is a lower Forest Service
priority.
[H] The total value of this acquisition is estimated at $412,600. The
Forest Service plans to use other funding sources to cover the
remaining $24,000.
[End of table]
The Nevada interagency team has submitted a total of five nominations
for secretarial approval under FLTFA. It nominated two Forest Service
acquisitions--a total of 705 acres valued at $4.76 million--in 2004.
These were the first nominations submitted for secretarial approval
under FLTFA. The Forest Service was unable to complete the purchases
because of negotiating differences with the sellers. Of the remaining
three Nevada nominations, one valued at $16 million was approved in
November 2007, one valued at $10.6 million awaits approval, and one
valued at $29 million has been withdrawn by the Nevada interagency
team.
The recently approved Nevada nomination is for the Pine Creek State
Park, an 80-acre inholding owned by the state of Nevada valued at $16
million (see fig. 8). BLM currently manages this inholding, which is
located in BLM's Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area. According
to the BLM nomination package, BLM would like to acquire this property
to meet the increasing recreational and educational needs of the park.
BLM explains that the property has recreational value; cultural
resources; riparian habitat; and habitat for the desert tortoise,
currently a threatened and endangered species.
Figure 8: Photograph and Location of the 80-Acre Pine Creek State Park
Inholding Approved as an FLTFA-Funded Acquisition at $16 Million:
This figure is a combination photograph and map showing the location of
the 80 acre Pine Creek State Park inholding approved as an FLTFA funded
acquisition at $16 million.
[See PDF for image]
Source: BLM photo and GAO adaptation of BLM map.
Note: The location map identifies the Pine Creek State Park inholding
within the boundaries of BLM's Red Rock Canyon National Conservation
Area located near Las Vegas, Nevada.
[End of figure]
The nomination that was withdrawn by the Nevada interagency team is the
320-acre Winter's Ranch property, which is adjacent to the Humbolt-
Toiyabe National Forest and several other properties acquired by BLM
under SNPLMA. BLM's FLTFA program lead said the nomination of the
parcel was withdrawn, in part because it is not adjacent to a federally
designated area managed by BLM.
In its nomination to acquire Winter's Ranch, the Carson City Field
Office said this parcel provides critical habitat for shorebirds, water
fowl, and other water-dependent species; offers unique recreational
opportunities for the public; and an undisturbed view for area
commuters and tourists. According to a Carson City Field Office
official, three creeks run through this property and irrigate the land,
making it possible to sustain wildlife habitat, such as raptors and
migratory birds. The official said that about $20 million of the
estimated $29 million value of the Winter's Ranch property is for the
water rights to the property, and that if BLM did not obtain the water
rights, other parties could acquire them and divert the water resources
to other areas, such as developing communities near Reno. The Winter's
Ranch parcel is shown in figure 9.
Figure 9: The 320-Acre Winter's Ranch FLTFA Acquisition Nomination in
Nevada, Valued at $29 Million:
This figure is a photograph of a 320 acre Winter's Ranch FLTFA
acquisition nomination in Nevada, which is valued at $29 million.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Over one-half of the state-level interagency teams--Colorado, Idaho,
Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, and Utah--did not review any land
acquisitions proposals between July 2000, when FLTFA was enacted, and
May 2007. Furthermore, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Park
Service have yet to submit a nomination for review under the state-
level interagency process. Fish and Wildlife Service and Park Service
officials based in California said they lacked the FLTFA funding
necessary to complete an acquisition and would have to wait until
sufficient revenue were available to allow them to nominate an
acquisition.
In examining the headquarters review and approval process, we found
that the Land Transaction Facilitation Council established in the
national MOU has never met. The BLM FLTFA program lead explained that,
as a practical matter, it has not been necessary for this council to
meet. Rather, in practice, acquisition nominations are forwarded to the
BLM lead and then routed to his counterparts at the other three
agencies for review. Additional reviews are then conducted at the
agency level and, ultimately, at the secretarial level.
State-Level Process Has Not Yet Resulted in Acquisitions Because of the
Time Taken to Complete Interagency Agreements and Limited Funds outside
of Nevada:
Although the agencies envisioned it as the primary process for
nominating land for acquisition under FLTFA, the state-level process
established in the national MOU and state-level interagency agreements
has yet to result in a completed land acquisition for two primary
reasons. First, it has taken over 6 years for the four agencies to
complete all interagency agreements--3 years for the agencies to
complete a national MOU and an additional 3 years for the agencies to
complete all state-level implementation agreements. Most agencies
completed Federal Register notifications of their procedures to
identify and set priorities for inholdings, as called for in the act,
soon after state-level agreements were signed. Nevada was the first
state to complete the implementation agreement in June 2004, and it
published a Federal Register notice in August 2004. Utah was the last
state to complete these actions, reaching an agreement in November 2006
and publishing its Federal Register notice in March 2007. Table 6
summarizes the completion of implementation agreements and the Federal
Register publication for each state.
Table 6: Completion of FLTFA Implementation Agreements and Federal
Register Notifications by State:
State: Nevada;
Date implementation agreement signed: June 2004; Federal Register
publication date: August 2004.
State: Montana;
Date implementation agreement signed: May 2005; Federal Register
publication date: June 2006.
State: California;
Date implementation agreement signed: November 2005; Federal Register
publication date: March 2006.
State: Colorado;
Date implementation agreement signed: January 2006; Federal Register
publication date: August 2006.
State: Oregon/Washington;
Date implementation agreement signed: March 2006; Federal Register
publication date: May 2006.
State: Arizona;
Date implementation agreement signed: May 2006; Federal Register
publication date: July 2006.
State: Idaho;
Date implementation agreement signed: July 2006; Federal Register
publication date: September 2006.
State: Wyoming;
Date implementation agreement signed: July 2006; Federal Register
publication date: September 2006.
State: New Mexico;
Date implementation agreement signed: August 2006; Federal Register
publication date: September 2006.
State: Utah;
Date implementation agreement signed: November 2006; Federal Register
publication date: March 2007.
Sources: FLTFA state-level interagency agreements and Federal Register
notices.
[End of table]
BLM officials told us that completion of these agreements was delayed
for a number of reasons, including attention to other priorities,
difficulties coordinating the effort with four agencies, and lack of
urgency due to limited revenue available for acquisitions.
Second, funds for acquisitions have been limited outside of Nevada.
Because FLTFA requires that at least 80 percent of funds raised must be
spent in the state in which they were raised and because 92 percent of
funds have been raised in Nevada, the majority of funds must be spent
on acquisitions in Nevada. However, as discussed earlier, no
acquisitions have yet been completed in Nevada. Additional factors,
such as the fact that about 92 percent of Nevada is already federally
owned and that SNPLMA has provided additional resources for land
acquisitions in Nevada, may have also contributed to the lack of a
completed acquisition under FLTFA in Nevada.
Outside of Nevada, agencies have had little money to acquire land.
Several agency officials, such as BLM state office officials in Utah
and Oregon, told us that additional revenue needs to be generated under
FLTFA for land acquisitions to occur. Moreover, Park Service and Forest
Service officials in California told us they are waiting for adequate
funding before they begin identifying and nominating acquisitions. The
Forest Service official explained that the agency could not make
significant purchases with their share of the FLTFA funds in California
because of the high cost of real estate.
BLM Reports Spending $3.2 Million on FLTFA Administrative Activities:
Between the time FLTFA was enacted and July 20, 2007, BLM reports
spending $3.2 million on FLTFA administrative expenses to conduct land
sales under the act. The three other agencies do not have land sale
expenses under the program. The BLM Nevada offices spent 81 percent of
the revenue, or $2.6 million. BLM offices in Arizona, California, New
Mexico, and Oregon each spent over $100,000, and the remaining five
states spent a combined total of less than $50,000. States with the
most active sales programs generally spent the most FLTFA revenue. For
example, Nevada field offices conducted 106 of the 265 total sales
under FLTFA, or 40 percent of the sales. Table 7 summarizes
administrative expenditures by state as reported by BLM's Division of
Business Services.
Table 7: BLM Reported Administrative Expenditures by State, July 25,
2000, through July 20, 2007:
State: Arizona;
Expenditure amount: $103,636.
State: California;
Expenditure amount: 123,119.
State: Colorado;
Expenditure amount: 37,173.
State: Idaho;
Expenditure amount: 652.
State: Montana;
Expenditure amount: 0.
State: New Mexico;
Expenditure amount: 171,712.
State: Nevada;
Expenditure amount: 2,574,074.
State: Oregon/Washington;
Expenditure amount: 145,930.
State: Utah;
Expenditure amount: 7,319.
State: Wyoming;
Expenditure amount: 4,022.
State: Other[A];
Expenditure amount: 4,319.
State: Total;
Expenditure amount: $3,171,956.
Source: GAO analysis of BLM's Division of Business Services data.
[A] In addition to BLM state and field office expenditures, the
Division of Business Services spent $2,595 and the BLM headquarters
office spent $1,724--a total of $4,319.
[End of table]
BLM spent little FLTFA revenue on the administrative costs of land
sales during the first 3 years of the program. According to the BLM
FLTFA program lead, there was little incentive for BLM to sell its land
because the MOU was not in place. Spending has generally increased
since then, with a spike in fiscal year 2006. Figure 10 shows FLTFA
expenditures from its enactment to July 2007.
Figure 10: FLTFA Administrative Expenditures, July 25, 2000, through
July 20, 2007:
This figure is a bar chart showing FLTFA administrative expenditures
between July 25, 2000, and July 20, 2007. The X axis represents the
year, and the Y axis represents the dollars in thousands.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of BLM's Division of Business Services data.
[End of figure]
BLM's Division of Business Services tracks FLTFA expenditures through
eight expenditure types. As table 8 shows, BLM offices spent 72 percent
of FLTFA expenditures --about $2.3 million--on personnel compensation
and benefits (e.g., staff to conduct sales).
Table 8: FLTFA Administrative Expenditures by Type, as of July 20,
2007:
Expenditure type: Other services[C]; Amount: 829,948;
Percent of total: 26.
Expenditure type: Printing and reproduction; Amount: 29,792;
Percent of total: 1.
Expenditure type: Supplies and materials; Amount: 18,440;
Percent of total: 1.
Expenditure type: Travel and transportation--personnel; Amount: 18,054;
Percent of total: 1.
Expenditure type: Transportation of things; Amount: 7,093;
Percent of total: less than 1.
Expenditure type: Rent, communications, and utilities; Amount: 292;
Percent of total: less than 1.
Expenditure type: Total;
Amount: $3,171,957;
Percent of total: [D].
Source: GAO analysis of BLM's Division of Business Services data.
[A] Personnel compensation and benefits represent two expenditure
types. Because they both involve payroll expenditures, we have combined
them in this table.
[B] Of this amount, personnel compensation accounted for $1,819,397 and
personnel benefits accounted for $448,941.
[C] Other services include expenditures such as appraisals and
contracts for environmental and cultural activities.
[D] Due to rounding, the percentages do not add up to 100.
[End of table]
Agencies Face Challenges in Completing Additional Acquisitions:
BLM managers and we identified several challenges in completing
additional acquisitions before FLTFA expires in 2010. BLM officials
most commonly cited the time, cost, and complexity of the land
acquisition process as a challenge to conducting acquisitions under
FLTFA. We also found that the act's restriction on the use of funds
outside of the state in which they were raised continues to limit
acquisitions. Specifically, little revenue is available for
acquisitions outside of Nevada. Furthermore, progress in acquiring
priority land has been hampered by the agencies' weak performance in
identifying inholdings and setting priorities for acquiring them, as
required by the act. Finally, the agencies have yet to develop
effective procedures to fully comply with the act and national MOU.
BLM Officials Most Commonly Cited the Time, Cost, and Complexity of the
Land Acquisition Process as a Challenge, among Several, to Completing
Acquisitions:
BLM state and field officials from the 10 BLM state offices and 18 BLM
field offices we interviewed most commonly cited the time, cost, and
complexity of the land acquisition process as a challenge they face in
completing land acquisitions. The other most commonly cited challenges
were, in the order of frequency cited, (1) identifying a willing
seller, (2) the availability of knowledgeable staff to conduct
acquisitions, (3) the lack of funding to purchase land, (4)
restrictions imposed by laws and regulations, and (5) public opposition
to land acquisitions. Some of the challenges BLM state and field
officials cited are likely typical of many federal land acquisitions.
Because they have had little experience with FLTFA acquisitions,
officials from the other three agencies had few comments about
challenges. The following provides examples of each of these
challenges:
* Time, cost, and complexity of the land acquisition process. To
complete an acquisition under FLTFA, four agencies must work together
to identify, nominate, and rank proposed acquisitions, which must then
be approved by the two Secretaries. Officials at two field offices
estimated the acquisition process takes about 2-1/2 to 3 years. BLM
officials from the Wyoming State Office and the Las Cruces Field Office
said that, with this length of time, BLM must either identify a very
committed seller willing to wait to complete a transaction or obtain
the assistance of a third party in completing an acquisition. A third
party could help either by purchasing the land first, holding it, and
then selling it to the government at a later date, or by negotiating
with the seller an option to buy the land within a specified period. In
terms of cost, some offices noted that they did not have the funding
required to complete all of the work involved to prepare land
acquisitions. In terms of complexity, a Utah State Office official said
BLM has more control over the process for submitting land acquisitions
under LWCF than FLTFA because FLTFA requires four agencies in two
departments to coordinate their efforts.
* Identifying a willing seller. Identifying a willing seller can be
problematic because, among other things, the seller might have higher
expectations of the property's value. For example, an Ely Field Office
official explained that, because of currently high real estate values,
sellers believe they can obtain higher prices from developers than from
the federal government. Further, an Idaho State Office official said
that it is difficult to find a seller willing to accept the appraised
price and wait for the government to complete the purchase.
Even when land acquisition nominations are approved, they may not
result in a purchase. For example, in 2004, under FLTFA, two approved
acquisitions for inholdings within a national forest in Nevada were
terminated. In one case, property values rose sharply during the
nomination process and, in an effort to retain some of their land, the
seller decided to reduce the acres for sale but maintain the price
expectation. Furthermore, the landowner decided not to grant access
through the parcel they were retaining to the Forest Service, thus
eliminating the opportunity to secure access to an inaccessible area of
the national forest. In the other case, during the course of the
secretarial approval process, the landowner sold portions of the land
included in the original transaction to another party, reducing the
land available for the Forest Service to purchase. According to Forest
Service officials, in both cases the purchase of the remaining parcels
would not fulfill the original purpose of the acquisitions due to
reductions in resource benefits. Therefore, the Forest Service
terminated both projects. Similarly, the SNPLMA program in Nevada has
had many terminated land acquisitions. Specifically, of the 116 land
acquisition projects approved by the Secretary of the Interior from
enactment in October 1998 through September 2007, 41 have been
completed, 55 have been terminated, and 20 are pending. This represents
a 47 percent termination rate. BLM did not report why these
acquisitions were terminated.
* Availability of knowledgeable staff to conduct acquisitions. As is
the case with selling federal land, BLM officials reported that they
lack knowledgeable realty staff to conduct land acquisitions, as well
as other BLM or department staff to conduct appraisals, surveys, and
resource studies. Staff are occupied working on higher priority
activities, particularly in the energy area.
* Lack of funding to purchase land. BLM officials in some states said
they lack adequate funds to acquire land under FLTFA. For example,
according to a field office official in Burns, Oregon, just one
acquisition in a nearby conservation area would nearly drain that
state's FLTFA account.
* Restrictions imposed by laws and regulations. BLM officials said that
legal and other restrictions pose a challenge to acquiring land. BLM
Arizona and Grand Junction, Colorado, officials said that some
federally designated areas in their jurisdictions were established
after the date of FLTFA's enactment, making the land within them
ineligible for acquisition under the act. BLM New Mexico officials said
that FLTFA's requirement that land be inholdings or adjacent land is
too limiting and argued that the law generally should allow for the
acquisition of land that has high resource values. In terms of
regulations, BLM Carson City Field Office officials told us that the
requirements they must follow regarding the processing of title,
survey, and hazardous materials issues pose a challenge to conducting
acquisitions.
* Public opposition to land acquisitions. According to BLM officials
from the Elko and Ely Field Offices in Nevada, the public does not
support the federal government's acquisition of federal land in their
areas, arguing that the government already owns a high percentage of
land and that such acquisitions result in the removal of land from the
local tax base.
Compliance with Specific Provisions in FLTFA Continue to Pose
Challenges to Future Acquisitions:
FLTFA's restriction on the use of funds outside of the state in which
they were raised continues to limit acquisitions. Specifically, as
mentioned earlier, little revenue is available for acquisitions outside
of Nevada.
Furthermore, the Secretaries of Agriculture and of the Interior have
given only minimal attention to developing a procedure specific to
FLTFA for identifying inholdings and adjacent land and setting
priorities for acquiring them, as required by the act. According to
BLM's Assistant Director for Minerals, Realty, and Resource Protection,
the four agencies met this requirement through their 2003 MOU. The
official explained that the MOU establishes "a program for
identification of eligible lands or interests in lands, and a process
for prioritizing such lands or interests for acquisition." However, we
found that the MOU only restates the basic statutory language for this
requirement and states that the Secretaries are to establish a
mechanism for identifying and setting priorities for acquiring
inholdings. We found no such mechanism or procedure at the national
level. While the state-level agreements do establish a process for
reviewing proposed acquisitions, six minimally elaborate and three do
not elaborate on the basic FLTFA criteria: the date the inholding was
established, the extent to which the acquisition will facilitate
management efficiency,[Footnote 24] and other criteria the Secretaries
consider appropriate. One exception to this is the Nevada state-level
agreement. Because the agencies involved in SNPLMA had already
developed an interagency agreement to implement that act, they modified
that agreement to include FLTFA. The Nevada agreement is generally more
detailed than other state agreements and includes more criteria for
considering land acquisitions because of the differences between the
SNPLMA and FLTFA land acquisition authorities. Also, unlike the other
state agreements, the Nevada agreement uses a quantitative system to
rank acquisitions. Table 9 is a summary of criteria each state-level
agreement includes beyond the FLTFA criteria for acquisition
nominations.
Table 9: Additional Criteria Contained in FLTFA State-Level Agreements
beyond Those Criteria Established under the Act:
State agreement: Arizona;
Criteria: Availability of funding: X; Completeness of nomination
package: X; Local support: [Empty];
Agency prioritization: [Empty]; Contributes toward the preservation of
a specially designated species: [Empty]; Estimated post-acquisition
management costs: [Empty]; Other: [Empty].
State agreement: California;
Criteria: Availability of funding: X; Completeness of nomination
package: X; Local support: X;
Agency prioritization: X;
Contributes toward the preservation of a specially designated species:
[Empty]; Estimated post-acquisition management costs: [Empty]; Other:
[Empty].
State agreement: Colorado;
Criteria: Availability of funding: X; Completeness of nomination
package: X; Local support: [Empty];
Agency prioritization: X;
Contributes toward the preservation of a specially designated species:
[Empty]; Estimated post-acquisition management costs: [Empty]; Other:
[Empty].
State agreement: Idaho;
Criteria: Availability of funding: X; Completeness of nomination
package: X; Local support: X;
Agency prioritization: X;
Contributes toward the preservation of a specially designated species:
[Empty]; Estimated post-acquisition management costs: [Empty]; Other:
[Empty].
State agreement: Montana;
Criteria: Availability of funding: [Empty]; Completeness of nomination
package: [Empty]; Local support: [Empty];
Agency prioritization: [Empty]; Contributes toward the preservation of
a specially designated species: [Empty]; Estimated post-acquisition
management costs: [Empty]; Other: [Empty].
State agreement: Nevada;
Criteria: Availability of funding: [Empty]; Completeness of nomination
package: [Empty]; Local support: X;
Agency prioritization: X;
Contributes toward the preservation of a specially designated species:
X; Estimated post-acquisition management costs: X; Other: X[A].
State agreement: New Mexico;
Criteria: Availability of funding: [Empty]; Completeness of nomination
package: [Empty]; Local support: [Empty];
Agency prioritization: [Empty]; Contributes toward the preservation of
a specially designated species: [Empty]; Estimated post-acquisition
management costs: [Empty]; Other: [Empty].
State agreement: Oregon/Washington; Criteria: Availability of funding:
X; Completeness of nomination package: X; Local support: [Empty];
Agency prioritization: X;
Contributes toward the preservation of a specially designated species:
[Empty]; Estimated post-acquisition management costs: [Empty]; Other:
[Empty].
State agreement: Utah;
Criteria: Availability of funding: X; Completeness of nomination
package: X; Local support: [Empty];
Agency prioritization: X;
Contributes toward the preservation of a specially designated species:
[Empty]; Estimated post-acquisition management costs: [Empty]; Other:
[Empty].
State agreement: Wyoming;
Criteria: Availability of funding: X; Completeness of nomination
package: X; Local support: [Empty];
Agency prioritization: X;
Contributes toward the preservation of a specially designated species:
[Empty]; Estimated post-acquisition management costs: [Empty]; Other:
[Empty].
Source: FLTFA state-level implementation agreements.
[A] Three additional criteria are included in the Nevada state-level
implementation agreement: (1) preserves a significant natural,
aesthetic or scientific feature; (2) preserves significant historic,
paleontological, or cultural site; and (3) enhances recreational
opportunities or improves public access to recreational opportunities.
[End of table]
When the agencies decided in 2006 to use the Secretaries' discretionary
authority to make the initial FLTFA acquisitions, officials from all
four agencies told us they generally relied on acquisition proposals
previously identified for LWCF funding to quickly identify the parcels
to acquire.[Footnote 25] The agencies have systems to identify and set
priorities for land acquisitions under LWCF. These existing systems
could serve as a basis for systematically identifying and ranking FLTFA-
eligible land for future acquisitions.
The Agencies Have Yet to Establish Effective Procedures to Fully Comply
with FLTFA and MOU Provisions:
With respect to FLTFA, the agencies--and primarily BLM, as the manager
of the FLTFA account--have not established a procedure to track the
act's requirement that at least 80 percent of funds allocated toward
the purchase of land within each state must be used to purchase
inholdings and that up to 20 percent may be used to purchase adjacent
land.[Footnote 26] The BLM FLTFA program lead said BLM considers this
requirement when making land acquisition decisions but has not
established a system to track it. The program lead noted that the
requirement to use 80 percent for inholdings is hard to track, as the
act is written, because the acquisition proposals are submitted in a
piecemeal fashion.
With respect to the national MOU, BLM has not established a procedure
to track agreed-upon fund allocations--60 percent for BLM, 20 percent
for the Forest Service, and 10 percent each for the Fish and Wildlife
Service and the Park Service.[Footnote 27] The BLM FLTFA program lead
told us the MOU allocations should be treated as a target or a goal on
a national basis and they do not apply within a state. However,
officials from the BLM Division of Business Services and BLM's Budget
Office told us there is no mechanism to track these allocations and
were unable to tell us whether the allocations should be followed at
the state or national level. Knowing whether the MOU fund allocations
are set at the state or national level is important because allocations
that apply nationally provide more flexibility than allocations at the
state level. While BLM did not track the allocations, most state-level
interagency agreements provide guidance on consideration of nominations
that exceed the established allocations and some BLM state office
officials we spoke with were mindful of these allocation targets. For
example, in California, the interagency team had agreed to "lend" BLM
the funds from their allocations for a proposed BLM acquisition because
they themselves could not effectively use the small portions of funding
allocated to them. In contrast, in Oregon, BLM officials said they had
not considered such an arrangement. The BLM FLTFA program lead said the
funding decisions made by the Secretaries will be tracked and further
information will be provided to the state-level interagency teams to
clear up any misunderstanding of the requirement.[Footnote 28]
Conclusions:
Congress anticipated that FLTFA would increase the efficiency and
effectiveness of federal land management by allowing the four agencies
to use certain land sales revenue without further appropriation to
acquire priority land. Seven years later, BLM has not taken full
advantage of the opportunity FLTFA offered. BLM has raised most of the
funds for the FLTFA account with land sales in just one state, and it
and the other land management agencies have made limited progress in
acquiring inholdings and adjacent land with exceptional resources.
Because there are less than 3 years remaining until FLTFA expires and a
significant amount of time is needed to complete both sales and
acquisitions, relatively little time remains to improve the
implementation of FLTFA.
We recognize that a number of challenges have prevented BLM from
completing many sales in most states, which limits the number of
possible acquisitions. Many of the challenges that BLM cited are likely
faced in many public land sales, as FLTFA did not change the land sales
process. However, we believe that BLM's failure to set goals for FLTFA
sales and develop a sales implementation strategy limits the agency's
ability to raise revenue for acquisitions. Without goals and a strategy
to achieve them, BLM field offices do not have direction for FLTFA
sales. Moreover, the lack of goals makes it difficult to determine the
extent of BLM's progress in disposing of unneeded lands to raise funds
for acquisitions.
As with sales, progress in acquiring priority land has been hampered by
weak agency performance in developing an effective mechanism to
identify potential land acquisitions and set priorities for inholdings
and adjacent land with exceptional resources, which FLTFA requires.
Without such a mechanism, it is difficult to assess whether the
agencies are acquiring the most significant inholdings and, thus,
enabling them to more effectively and efficiently manage federal lands.
Although the agencies do have systems to identify and set priorities
for land acquisitions under LWCF that could potentially be adapted for
the FLTFA acquisitions as well, they have not done so. Moreover,
because the agencies have not tracked the amounts spent on inholdings
and agency allocations, they cannot ensure compliance with the act or
full implementation of the MOU.
As Congress considers the Administration's proposal to amend and
reauthorize FLTFA, it may wish to reconsider the act's requirements
that eligible lands are only those designated in the land use plans at
the time FLTFA was enacted and that most FLTFA revenue raised must be
spent in that state. Adjusting the eligibility of land use plans, as
the Administration has proposed, could provide additional resources for
land acquisitions under FLTFA. In addition, providing the agencies with
more flexibility over the use of funds may allow them to acquire the
most desirable land nationwide.
Matters for Congressional Consideration:
If Congress decides to reauthorize FLTFA in 2010, it may wish to
consider revising the following provisions to better achieve the goals
of the act:
* FLTFA limits eligible land sales to those lands identified in land
use plans in effect as of July 25, 2000. This provision excludes more
recently identified land available for disposal, thereby reducing
opportunities for raising additional revenue for land acquisition.
* The requirement that agencies spend the majority of funds raised from
eligible sales for acquisitions in the same state. This provision makes
it difficult for agencies to acquire more desirable land in states that
have generated little revenue.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We are making five recommendations.
To improve the implementation of the FLTFA mandate to raise funds to
purchase inholdings, we recommend that the Secretary of the Interior
direct the Director of BLM to:
* develop goals for land sales, and:
* develop a strategy for implementing these goals during the last 3
years of the program.
To enhance the departments' compliance with the act, we recommend that
the Secretaries of Agriculture and of the Interior improve the
procedure in place to identify and set priorities for acquiring
inholdings.
To enhance the departments' compliance with the act, we recommend that
the Secretary of the Interior direct the Director of BLM to establish a
procedure to track the percentage of revenue spent on inholdings and on
adjacent land.
To fully implement the National Memorandum of Understanding, we
recommend that the Secretaries of Agriculture and of the Interior
establish a procedure to track the fund allocations for land
acquisitions by agency as provided in the MOU.
Agency Comments:
The Department of the Interior provided written comments on a draft of
this report. The department generally concurred with our report's
findings and recommendations, stating that it will implement all of the
recommendations. These comments are presented in appendix IV of this
report. In addition, Interior and the Department of Agriculture
provided technical comments on the draft report, which we have
incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of the Interior;
the Secretary of Agriculture; the Directors of BLM, the Park Service,
and the Fish and Wildlife Service; and the Chief of the Forest Service;
and other interested parties. We will also make copies available to
others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no
charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact
me at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are
listed in appendix V.
Signed by:
Robin M. Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
With the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act of 2000 (FLTFA) set
to expire in July 2010, we were asked to (1) determine the extent to
which the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has generated revenue for the
FLTFA program, (2) identify challenges BLM faces in conducting future
sales, (3) determine the extent to which the agencies have spent funds
under FLTFA, and (4) identify challenges the agencies face in
conducting future acquisitions. We also assessed the reliability of
data BLM provided on revenue generated and on expenditures to date
under FLTFA.
For all four objectives, we reviewed FLTFA, other applicable laws,
regulations, and agency guidance. We interviewed the FLTFA program
leads at the headquarters offices for BLM, the Fish and Wildlife
Service, and the Park Service within the U.S. Department of the
Interior, and the Forest Service within the U.S. Department of
Agriculture on program status, goals, and management oversight for the
program. To understand BLM‘s interpretation of key provisions of the
act, we interviewed officials with Interior‘s Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Land and Minerals Management and Office of the Solicitor
and, in some cases, requested the department‘s views on these
provisions in writing.
To determine the extent to which BLM has generated and expended FLTFA
program revenue, we obtained and analyzed data from BLM‘s Division of
Business Services on program revenue and visited Division of Business
Services accounting officials in Lakewood, Colorado, to discuss the
management of the FLTFA account. Using information provided by the
Division of Business Services and information we obtained from the
Federal Register, we prepared summary information on completed sales by
state and asked the 10 BLM state office officials responsible for the
FLTFA program in their state to verify and update that information. As
part of the request to state offices, we obtained data on planned FLTFA
land sales and completed and planned acquisitions through 2010. We
subjected the data provided by the field offices to electronic and
logic testing and followed up with the field contacts regarding
questions. With regard to acquisitions, we reviewed available
documentation for land acquisition proposals considered by the 10 FLTFA
interagency teams at the state level, agency headquarters, and the
Secretaries of Agriculture and of the Interior. During our visits to
selected BLM state offices (California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Oregon)
and field offices (Carson City, Nevada, and Las Cruces, New Mexico), we
interviewed officials and visited planned land acquisition sites to
learn about the land acquisition process. During these visits we also
interviewed selected officials with the Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Forest Service, and the Park Service to learn about their experience in
drafting state-level interagency agreements and with implementing land
acquisitions under FLTFA. To assess the reliability of data provided by
the Division of Business Services on revenue and expenditures, we
interviewed staff responsible for compiling and reporting the data at
the Division of Business Services and at the state office and field
locations visited. We examined reports of this data from BLM‘s
financial systems and related guidance and sought documentation on
selected entries into the system.
To determine whether BLM has sufficient internal controls over FLTFA
receipts and expenditures, we interviewed officials at the bureau‘s
Division of Business Services and obtained, reviewed, and assessed the
system of internal controls for the U.S. Treasury account established
under FLTFA, including management‘s written policies and procedures, as
well as control activities over collections, expenditures, and the
records for these transactions. We also reviewed documentation for a
nonprobability sample of 7 nonlabor FLTFA expenditures totaling $54,967
that were charged by the Las Cruces Field Office to ensure proper
documentation. As of July 20, 2007, BLM offices had made a total of
15,706 expenditure transactions”858 nonlabor and 14,848
labor”nationwide. The seven we chose included expenditures for
appraisals and cultural evaluations on properties being prepared for
sale under FLTFA. We chose these transactions because they were the
largest ones and included a single vendor. We also chose one
expenditure made on a charge card because it was slightly less than a
reporting limit. We checked to ensure that documentation for these
expenditures included (1) an agreement or contract between BLM and the
entity to have specific work completed, (2) an invoice detailing work
performed, and (3) evidence of BLM supervisory approval to pay for such
services. After our review of the internal control policies and
procedures, testing and verification of data on revenue, and obtaining
documentation of the selected expenditures, the revenue and expenditure
data was considered sufficiently reliable for our report.
To identify challenges to conducting land sales and acquisitions, we
reviewed the FLTFA national memorandum of understanding, state-level
interagency agreements, and documentation of headquarters and
statelevel interagency team activities to learn about the policies and
procedures established for the implementation of FLTFA. We conducted
semistructured interviews using a web-based protocol with (1) the 10
BLM state officials responsible for the FLTFA program in their
state”Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New
Mexico, Oregon/Washington, Utah, and Wyoming; (2) officials at the
seven BLM field offices that have raised 97 percent of the FLTFA
revenue (as shown in table 10); and (3) a nongeneralizable sample of 11
of the 137 remaining BLM field offices that had not conducted a
competitive sale under FLTFA as of May 31, 2007 (as shown in table 11).
From the field offices with no competitive sales, we choose at least
one office from each of the ten state offices under FLTFA and we
considered the proximity of lands managed by field offices to urban
areas. For California, we selected two additional field offices”Palm
Springs and Eagle Lake. We chose the Palm Springs Field Office because
it planned a major sale during our review and we chose the Eagle Lake
Field Office because, although it is located in California, it manages
some land in Nevada and has had no competitive sales. Because all of
the Nevada field offices have had competitive sales and four Nevada
offices were among the high revenue offices selected, we decided to
select the Eagle Lake office. To analyze the narrative responses to
some of the semistructured interview questions, we used the web-based
system to perform content analyses of select open-ended responses. To
conduct the content analyses to develop statistics on agreement among
the answers, two reviewers per question collaborated on developing
content categories based on survey responses and independently assessed
and coded each survey response into those categories. Intercoder
reliability (agreement) statistics were electronically generated in the
coding process, and agreement on all categories were 90 percent or
above. Coding disagreements were resolved through reviewer discussion.
In addition, analyses of the closed-ended responses were produced with
statistical software.
Table 10: The Seven BLM Field Offices Selected That Have Generated 97
Percent of FLTFA Revenue, as of May 31, 2007:
State: Nevada;
BLM office: Carson City Field Office;
State: Nevada;
BLM office: Elko Field Office;
State: Nevada;
BLM office: Ely Field Office;
State: Nevada;
BLM office: Las Vegas Field Office;
State: New Mexico;
BLM office: Las Cruces District Office;
State: Oregon;
BLM office: Bruns District Office;
State: Wyoming;
BLM office: Rock Springs Field Office.
Source: GAO analysis of BLM Division of Business Services revenue data.
[End of figure]
Table: The Eleven BLM Field Offices Selected That Had Not Conducted a
Competetive Sale under FLTFA, as of May 31, 2007:
State: Arizona;
BLM Office: Lower Sonoran Field Office;
State: California;
BLM Office: Eagle Lake Field Office;
State: California;
BLM Office: El Entro Field Office;
State: California;
BLM Office: Palm Springs Field Office;
State: Colorado;
BLM Office: Grand Junction Field Office;
State: Idaho;
BLM Office: Idaho Falls District Office;
State: Montana;
BLM Office: Lewistown Field Office;
State: New Mexico;
BLM Office: Farmington Field Office;
State: Oregon;
BLM Office: Medford District Office;
State: Utah;
BLM Office: St. George Field Office;
State: Wyoming;
BLM Office: Casper Field Office.
Source: GAO analysis of BLM Division of Business Services revenue data
and other factors.
[End of figure]
We also interviewed a range of officials about the land acquisition
process. These officials included FLTFA program leads at each agency‘s
headquarters and selected state or regional-level contacts with each
agency, as well as officials from third-party organizations involved
with the land acquisition process, such as The Nature Conservancy and
The Trust for Public Land.
We performed our work between November 2006 and February 2008 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Completed FLTFA Land Sales, through May 2007:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of information from BLM Division of Business
Services and state offices.
[A] Information not provided.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Detailed Information on Planned FLTFA Land Sales through
2010, as Reported by BLM State Offices:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of information from BLM's state offices.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
The Associate Deputy Secretary Of The Interior:
Washington:
January 25, 2008:
Ms. Robin Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW.:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Nazzaro:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) draft report entitled, "Federal Land
Management”Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act Restrictions and
Management Weaknesses Limit Future Sales and Acquisitions," (GAO-08-
196). General and specific comments are provided below.
General Comments:
The Department of the Interior generally concurs with your findings and
recommendations for executive action, as well as recommendations for
the Congress to consider revising the Federal Land Transaction
Facilitation Act of 2000, Title II of Public Law No. 106-248. The DOI
supports reauthorizing the FLTFA along the lines discussed in the
report and removing the 2010 sunset.
The FLTFA facilitates acquisition of non-Federal land by making
available proceeds from the sale of Bureau of Land Management-managed
public land identified for disposal in land use plans adopted before
enactment of the FLTFA in July 2000. The FLTFA's land acquisition
provisions apply to the BLM, National Park Service, and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service in the DOI, and the U.S. Forest Service in the
Department of Agriculture. In 2003, the Assistant Secretary-Policy,
Management and Budget of the DOI, the BLM, NPS, FWS, and USFS entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding to improve the implementation of the
FLTFA by coordinating the roles and responsibilities of the signing
agencies. The BLM, as lead agency, in coordination with the
headquarters staff of the other participating agencies, provides
guidance through program management and oversight, policy, and
training. Using funds generated by FLTFA-eligible land sales, the
Federal Government has acquired land that is meeting a wide range of
resource management goals. The FLTFA has funded acquisitions for all
four participating land management agencies. As of December 27, 2007,
participating agencies have spent $9,446,000 and acquired nine parcels
totaling 3,382 acres. An example of land acquired with FLTFA funds is
the BLM's acquisition of 321 acres in southern California to be managed
as part of the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard Area of Critical
Environmental Concern. This acreage provides key wildlife habitat and
maintains a biological corridor linking the Coachella Valley Fringe-
Toed Lizard Preserve, which contains both the BLM-managed ACEC and the
Coachella Valley National Wildlife Refuge managed by the FWS and the
Joshua Tree National Park managed by the NPS. This acquisition, which
was facilitated by Friends of the Desert Mountains, also protects the
fluvial sand transport system and hydrological regime essential for
sustaining the dune communities of listed species in the Preserve.
In addition, $34,015,000 has been approved and allocated to the
respective agencies to acquire multiple parcels; these transactions are
pending completion. For example, the USFS will complete acquisition of
the 4,303-acre Six Rivers National Forest parcel, valued at $2,865,000,
in January 2008. This parcel will complete the third of a three-phase
purchase facilitated by Western Rivers Conservancy, within the heart of
the Goose Creek National Wild and Scenic River (a tributary of the
Smith River”California's only undammed river system). This acquisition
will secure in perpetuity critical habitat for multiple Federally-
listed species, including California's healthiest wild runs of Chinook
and Coho salmon.
Response To Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: Directed to the BLM, this recommendation includes the
suggestion that the BLM develop goals for land sales and develop a
strategy to implement these goals in the remaining three years of the
program.
Response: The BLM will establish goals to offer FLTFA-eligible property
for sale. The BLM will identify areas where market conditions create an
opportunity to prepare and offer public land for sale; for example,
areas with rapidly appreciating land values.
Conclusion: The BLM is implementing this recommendation.
Recommendation 2: Directed to both the DOI and the USDA, this
recommendation is to improve procedures in place to identify and set
priorities for acquiring inholdings.
Response: The MOU signed in 2003 by all participating FLTFA agencies
and the subsequent State-specific interagency implementation agreements
establish procedures to identify and prioritize land for acquisition.
Further, the BLM has published requests for nominations by the public
of properties eligible for acquisition using FLTFA funds in each
affected State. In addition, during the development of the May 2007
Secretarial initiative, each participating agency relied on acquisition
priorities identified within the framework of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund land acquisition procedures, and determined which of
these priorities were consistent with the FLTFA and the 2003 MOU.
Absent nominations by the public of specific eligible properties, which
receive consideration in accordance with the 2003 MOU, and State-
specific agreements, land acquisition priorities remain constant
regardless of the source of funding. Limitations specific to the FLTFA
and LWCF authorities and agency policy may influence funding
eligibility. All participating agencies have many years of experience
with setting LWCF priorities. The BLM will coordinate with the other
signatories to the MOU to formalize use of a single process to
prioritize land acquisitions.
Conclusion: The DOI will work with the USDA to implement this
recommendation.
Recommendation 3: Directed to the BLM, this recommendation is to
establish a procedure to track the percentage of revenue spent on
inholdings and adjacent lands.
Response: The BLM maintains data for all participating agencies on each
specific parcel acquired using FLTFA funds. Additionally, the BLM has
determined that its automated land status tracking system has the
capacity to record such particulars of land acquisitions. The BLM is
directing field staff to note in the automated land status tracking
system whether a parcel is an inholding or an edgeholding (adjacent
land).
Conclusion: This recommendation will be implemented.
Recommendation 4: This recommendation is for both the DOI and the USDA
to establish a procedure to track the fund allocations for land
acquisition by agency as provided in the MOU.
Response: The BLM gathers data on each FLTFA transaction and tracks
respective allocations. The Secretarial initiative and other approved
acquisition recommendations are consistent with the MOU allocation
method. The DOI will coordinate with the USDA to ensure that allocation
tracking procedures are adequate and conform to the MOU.
Conclusion: The DOI will work with the USDA to implement this
recommendation. Technical corrections are addressed separately and
attached.
If you have any questions, please contact David Beaver, BLM FLTFA/LWCF
Program Lead, at (202) 452-7788, or Andrea Nygren, BLM Audit Liaison
Officer, at (202) 452-5153.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Nina Rose Hatfield:
for:
James E. Cason:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgements:
GAO Contact: Robin N. Nazzaro, (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgements: In addition to those named above, Andrea
Wamstad Brown, Assistant Director; Mark Keenan; Emily Larson; John
Scott; and Rebecca Shea made key contributions to this report. Also
contributing to the report were Anthony Covacevich, Rich Johnson, Paul
Kinney, and Carol Herrnstadt Shulman.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture,
National Land Acquisition Plan (Washington, D.C., February 2005). The
agencies estimated the following acres of inholdings: National Park
Service--6.5 million acres; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service--17.3
million acres; Forest Service--about 40 million acres; and BLM--over 7
million acres within National Monuments and National Conservation areas
and several million more in other areas.
[2] Pub. L. 106-248 (2000) (codified as 43 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq).
[3] Land exchanges generate revenue for BLM when the value of the
federal land exchanged is greater than the nonfederal land and a cash
equalization payment is made for the difference.
[4] The authority is provided in the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act (FLPMA) of 1976 (Pub. L. 94-579 (1976) (codified at 43 U.S.C. §
1701 et seq.) FLPMA defines the 11 contiguous western states as
Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico,
Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming (43 U.S.C. 1702, § 103 (o)).
BLM's Alaska State Office is not currently participating in FLTFA
because of its priority to settle Alaska Native land claims.
[5] BLM land use plans may also be called "resource management plans"
and "management framework plans." We will refer to them as land use
plans, the term used in FLTFA.
[6] This new account is referred to in the act as the Federal Land
Disposal Account. Before FLTFA, revenues from these transactions were
typically deposited into the Treasury's general fund.
[7] According to the act (43 USC 2302), the term "exceptional resource"
means a resource of scientific, natural, historic, cultural, or
recreational value that has been documented by a federal, state, or
local governmental authority, and for which there is a compelling need
for conservation and protection under the jurisdiction of a Federal
agency in order to maintain the resource for the benefit of the public.
[8] For this report, "field offices" refers to BLM's 26 district
offices, and 118 field offices
[9] Effective October 1, 2007, a reorganization of the BLM centers in
Denver merged the National Business Center, National Human Resources
Management Center, National Information Resources Management Center,
and National Science and Technology Center into a single unit called
the National Operations Center. The National Business Center is now
known as the Division of Business Services.
[10] This refers to Title I of Pub. L. 106-248, which provides for the
federal acquisition of the Baca Ranch in New Mexico. FLTFA is Title II
of this act.
[11] The Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 established the Land
and Water Conservation Fund. Pub. L. 88-578. Among other sources of
land acquisition funding is the Migratory Bird Fund used exclusively by
the Fish and Wildlife Service.
[12] The LWCF is a trust fund that accumulates revenue from federal
outdoor recreation user fees, the federal motorboat fuel tax, and
surplus property sales. To supplement these sources to reach its annual
authorized level of $900 million, the fund accumulates revenues from
oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf.
[13] By comparison, in fiscal year 2006, Congress appropriated $41.8
million, or about 35 percent, to the Forest Service; $34.4 million, or
about 29 percent, to the Park Service; and $28.0 million, or about 23
percent, to the Fish and Wildlife Service; and $7.3 million, or about 6
percent, for U.S. Department of the Interior appraisal services.
[14] Pub. L. 105-263, 112 Stat. 2343 (1998), as amended. Other acts
include the Lincoln County Land Act of 2000, Pub. L. 106-298; and the
White Pine County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of
2006, Title III, Pub. L. 109-432.
[15] SNPLMA also authorizes the expenditure of funds on additional
categories, such as certain capital improvements; development of a
multispecies habitat plan in Clark County, Nevada; and development of
parks, trails, and natural areas in Clark County, Nevada.
[16] See Pub. L. 136, August 31, 1951 (65 Stat. 248, 252).
[17] Pub. L. 106-298: Lincoln County Land Act Of 2000, as amended by
Pub. L. 108-424 (2004) Title III, White Pine County Conservation,
Recreation, and Development Act of 2006.
[18] n 2000, BLM estimated that there were more than 3.3 million acres
potentially available for disposal. (BLM, ’Questions and Answers:
Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act, Title II, of The Valles
Caldera Preservation Act (Baca Ranch, NM)“ (April 4, 2003, [hyperlink,
http://www.blm.gov/nhp/news/releases/pages/2000/valles_QsAs.htm]
accessed on February 28, 2007). However, the BLM FLTFA program lead
said that only a small percentage of the land designated for disposal
are good candidates for sale because the projected revenue from the
sale exceeds the cost to conduct the sale.
[19] The BLM FLTFA program lead reported more recently that a revised
estimate of future sales revenue had been prepared for the FY 2008 and
beyond. The estimate projects an average of $7.5 million in annual
sales revenue or a total of $82.5 million in revenue from FY 2008
through FY 2018, with the assumptions that the program is extended,
that revised program authority adds to the inventory of land available
for sale and that the program is made a priority by BLM state
directors.
[20] GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government
Performance and Results Act, GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington, D.C.: June
1996).
[21] Sec. 205(a) of Pub. L. 106-248 (2000), codified at 43 U.S.C. §
2305.
[22] An acquisition is considered complete when the property title is
transferred from the nonfederal landowner to the federal government.
[23] FLTFA allows up to 20 percent of revenue raised to be used for
administrative activities related to land disposals. If the agencies do
not need the total amount allowed for administrative expenses, they may
use the remainder for acquisitions. See fig. 2.
[24] BLM's FLTFA program lead stated that the program's emphasis on
inholdings naturally addresses the management efficiency criterion
because the acquisition of inholdings reduces the cost and burden of
managing the public land around an inholding.
[25] The BLM FLTFA program lead said that the criteria for acquisitions
under LWCF are generally broad enough to include the criteria under
FLTFA.
[26] BLM's Assistant Director for Minerals, Realty, and Resource
Protection confirmed that FLTFA "provides for two separate categories
of lands...that can be purchased"--inholdings and adjacent lands--and
funds must be used within these parameters.
[27] The MOU also states that the Secretaries "may mutually decide to
allocate funds to a specific acquisition project, notwithstanding
[these fund allocations]."
[28] BLM reported that the first national training workshop on FLTFA
for BLM and the other three agencies was held in December 2007, during
which the tracking of the funding allocations was to be clarified.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
