Major Management Challenges and Program Risks
Department of the Interior Gao ID: GAO-03-104 January 1, 2003In the 2001 performance and accountability report on the Department of the Interior (Interior), GAO identified important challenges facing the department in its management of ecosystem restoration efforts, Indian tribes, national parks, and land exchanges. The information GAO presents in this report is intended to help sustain congressional attention and a departmental focus on continuing to make progress in addressing these challenges--and others that have arisen since 2001--and ultimately overcoming them. This report is part of a special series of reports on governmentwide and agency-specific issues.
The Department of the Interior has made inroads in resolving some of the challenges we previously identified. However, several challenges have not been adequately addressed, and two new challenges have emerged--a deferred maintenance backlog and weaknesses in financial reporting. Better management of ecosystem restoration efforts is needed. Interior has taken steps to better manage ecosystem restoration efforts. It has adopted the National Fire Plan, identified the resources needed to restore the South Florida ecosystem, and issued a plan to control invasive species. However, more work is needed to address the growing wildland fire threat caused by the excessive fuel buildup; complete actions to improve the South Florida ecosystem restoration effort; and establish an agencywide goal to control and eradicate invasive species. Management problems persist in programs for Indians and island communities. Interior's efforts to properly account for Indian trust funds continue to be hampered by inadequate accounting and information systems, and internal control weaknesses. Management issues also impede tribes' progress toward self-determination. Interior also has varying responsibilities to seven island communities that have long-standing financial and program management deficiencies. Data-gathering and concessions reforms are needed to improve management of the national parks. The National Park Service has received funding to start to build natural resource inventories and has hired a private firm to analyze its concession program. These are good first steps. However, better scientific information on the condition of its natural resources is needed, and persistent management problems in its concessions program still need to be addressed. Management problems impede land exchanges and appraisals. While a private contractor has studied Interior's land exchange program, concerns still exist that land exchange appraisals do not ensure the lands are appropriately valued or that the public's interest is protected. Deferred maintenance backlog needs to be addressed. Interior faces a deferred maintenance backlog of between $8.1 billion and $11.4 billion. The agency has issued guidance to standardize deferred maintenance estimates and repair priorities, but these efforts are new and attention will need to be paid to how they are implemented. Financial management weaknesses need to be addressed. Interior's consolidated financial statements for fiscal year 2001 received an unqualified opinion. However, the auditors identified 15 reportable internal control weaknesses; 6 of which were material weaknesses.
GAO-03-104, Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of the Interior
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-104
entitled 'Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of
the Interior' which was released on January 01, 2003.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting 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.
Performance and Accountability Series:
January 2003:
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks:
Department of the Interior:
GAO-03-104:
A Glance at the Agency Discussed in This Report
The Department of the Interior has jurisdiction over about 500 million
acres of land”about one-fifth of the total U.S. landmass”and about 1.8
billion acres of the Outer Continental Shelf. The department is the
nation‘s principal conservation agency. Its overall mission is complex
and includes
* protecting and preserving the nation‘s natural and cultural
resources,
* fulfilling the government‘s trust responsibility to American Indians
and Alaska Natives,
* conserving and protecting fish and wildlife,
* offering recreation opportunities,
* conducting scientific research,
* providing stewardship of energy and mineral resources, and
* fostering sound use of land and water resources.
The Department of the Interior‘s Budgetary and Staff Resources:
[See PDF for Image)
[A] Budgetary resources include new budget authority (BA) and
unobligated
balances of previous BA.
[B] Budget and staff resources are actuals for FY 1998-2001. FY
2002 are
estimates from the FY 2003 budget, which are the latest publicly
available
figures on a consistent basis as of January 2003. Actuals for FY
2002 will be
contained in the President‘s FY 2004 budget to be released in
February 2003.
Source: Budget of the United States Government.
[End of Figure]
This Series:
This report is part of a special GAO series, first issued in
1999 and updated
in 2001, entitled the Performance and Accountability Series:
Major Management
Challenges and Program Risks. The 2003 Performance and
Accountability Series
contains separate reports covering each cabinet department, most
major
independent agencies, and the U.S. Postal Service. The series
also includes a
governmentwide perspective on transforming the way the government
does business
in order to meet 21st century challenges and address long-term
fiscal needs.
The companion 2003 High-Risk Series: An Update identifies areas
at high risk
due to either their greater vulnerabilities to waste, fraud,
abuse, and
mismanagement or major challenges associated with their economy,
efficiency, or
effectiveness. A list of all of the reports in this series is
included at the
end of this report.
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-104, a report to
Congress included as part of GAO‘s
Performance and Accountability Series
PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY SERIES
Department of the Interior
Why GAO Did This Study:
In the 2001 performance and accountability report on the
Department of the Interior
(Interior), GAO identified important challenges facing the
department in its
management of ecosystem restoration efforts, Indian tribes,
national parks, and
land exchanges. The information GAO presents in this report
is intended to help
sustain congressional attention and a departmental focus on
continuing to make progress
in addressing these challenges”and others that have arisen
since 2001”and ultimately
overcoming them. This report is part of a special series of
reports on governmentwide
and agency-specific issues.
What GAO Found:
The Department of the Interior has made inroads in resolving
some of the
challenges we previously identified. However, several
challenges have not
been adequately addressed, and two new challenges have
emerged”a
deferred maintenance backlog and weaknesses in financial
reporting.
• Better management of ecosystem restoration efforts is needed.
Interior has taken steps to better manage ecosystem restoration
efforts.
It has adopted the National Fire Plan, identified the resources
needed to
restore the South Florida ecosystem, and issued a plan to
control
invasive species. However, more work is needed to address the
growing
wildland fire threat caused by the excessive fuel buildup;
complete
actions to improve the South Florida ecosystem restoration
effort; and
establish an agencywide goal to control and eradicate invasive
species.
• Management problems persist in programs for Indians and island
communities. Interior‘s efforts to properly account for Indian
trust
funds continue to be hampered by inadequate accounting and
information systems, and internal control weaknesses. Management
issues also impede tribes‘ progress toward self-determination.
Interior
also has varying responsibilities to seven island communities
that have
long-standing financial and program management deficiencies.
• Data-gathering and concessions reforms are needed to improve
management of the national parks. The National Park Service has
received funding to start to build natural resource inventories
and has
hired a private firm to analyze its concession program. These
are good
first steps. However, better scientific information on the
condition of its
natural resources is needed, and persistent management problems
in its
concessions program still need to be addressed.
• Management problems impede land exchanges and appraisals.
While a private contractor has studied Interior‘s land exchange
program,
concerns still exist that land exchange appraisals do not ensure
the lands
are appropriately valued or that the public‘s interest is
protected.
• Deferred maintenance backlog needs to be addressed. Interior
faces a deferred maintenance backlog of between $8.1 billion
and $11.4
billion. The agency has issued guidance to standardize deferred
maintenance estimates and repair priorities, but these efforts
are new
and attention will need to be paid to how they are implemented.
• Financial management weaknesses need to be addressed.
Interior‘s consolidated financial statements for fiscal year
2001 received
an unqualified opinion. However, the auditors identified 15
reportable
internal control weaknesses; 6 of which were material
weaknesses.
What Remains to Be Done:
GAO believes that Interior should
• continue its efforts of adopting joint strategies with
other entities to
address excess forest fuels,
• link critical strategic goals to interim goals in
restoring the South
Florida ecosystem,
• continue to reform Indian trust fund management and the
tribal recognition
process, and
• continue to devote attention to reducing a deferred
maintenance backlog and
improving financial reporting.
To view the full report, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Robert A.
Robinson at (202) 512-3841 or
robinsonr@gao.gov.
Contents:
Transmittal Letter:
Major Performance and Accountability Challenges:
GAO Contacts:
Related GAO Products:
Performance and Accountability and High-Risk Series:
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. It may
contain
copyrighted graphics, images or other materials. Permission
from the
copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to
reproduce
copyrighted materials separately from GAO‘s product.
Transmittal Letter January 2003:
The President of the Senate
The Speaker of the House of Representatives:
This report addresses the major management challenges facing the U.S.
Department of the Interior as it works to strike a balance between its
two basic mandates--to protect and preserve the nation‘s resources for
the benefit of future generations while at the same time accommodating
demands for their use and consumption today. The report discusses the
actions that Interior has taken and that are under way to address the
challenges GAO identified in its Performance and Accountability Series
2 years ago, and major events that have occurred that significantly
influence the environment in which the department carries out its
mission. Also, GAO summarizes the challenges that remain, new ones that
have emerged, and further actions that GAO believes are needed.
This analysis should help the new Congress and the administration carry
out their responsibilities and improve government for the benefit of
the American people. For additional information about this report,
please contact Robert A. Robinson, Managing Director, Natural Resources
and Environment, at (202) 512-3841 or at robinsonr@gao.gov.
David M. Walker
Comptroller General
of the United States:
Signed by David M. Walker:
[End of section]
Major Performance and Accountability Challenges:
In our January 2001 report,[Footnote 1] we identified four specific
performance and management challenges that the U.S. Department of the
Interior (Interior) faced. Our report focused on the department‘s need
to (1) improve the management of the ecosystem restoration efforts
(wildland fires and restoration of the Florida Everglades); (2) address
persistent management problems in Indian trust programs (accounting for
Indian trust funds and promoting Indian self-determination); (3)
improve management of the national parks (collecting data on the Park
Service‘s resources, deferred maintenance backlog, holding park
managers accountable for achieving results, managing concessionaires,
and structural fire program); and (4) address challenges in managing an
expanding land base (land exchanges and budgetary difficulties due to
an expanding land base).
Since our January 2001 report, the department has taken steps to
address some of the specific performance and management challenges we
previously reported. For example, in conjunction with the Secretary of
Agriculture, it has established a Wildland Leadership Council to work
to achieve consistent and coordinated efforts to implement the National
Fire Plan. In addition, the department has made substantial progress in
identifying the resources needed and the agencies accountable for
specific actions in the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem
(which includes the Everglades). Furthermore, it is working to
implement a plan for controlling invasive species that was developed by
the National Invasive Species Council in January 2001. The department
has also issued a report to the Congress containing a plan for
accounting for all Individual Indian Money accounts. Also, the
department has allocated funds to the National Park Service to set up
its Natural Resources Inventory and Monitoring Program to develop
needed information on basic natural resource inventories. The National
Park Service is also continuing to improve its efforts to catalogue
cultural resources and preserve historic sites. Finally, the department
has taken steps to improve the appraisal process for land exchanges by
contracting with a consultant to review its procedures and recommend
changes.
In 2003, the department continues to confront many of the same
challenges that we identified in 2001. Although some of the specific
nature and examples under each of the four management challenges that
we identified in 2001 may have changed, the overall challenges remain
the same. For example, fighting wildland fires (ecosystem restoration)
and accounting for Indian trust funds continue to be significant
issues. In addition, for this update of the Performance and
Accountability Series we have added two new management challenges for
Interior concerning (1) deferred maintenance and (2) material
weaknesses in internal controls over financial reporting. Specifically,
the department continues to face the following major management
challenges:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
[End of figure] - graphic text:
Improve Management of Ecosystem Restoration Efforts:
To achieve its departmentwide mandate for protecting and preserving the
natural resources under its management, the department has developed
long-term goals of restoring the health of public lands and maintaining
ecosystems. To accomplish these goals, the department will need to
restore significant national ecosystems to health by addressing the
growing wildland fire threat to communities and resources caused by the
excessive buildup of fuels in forested ecosystems, such as those
located in the interior Western states; restoring the South Florida
ecosystem, which includes the Everglades; and controlling and
eradicating invasive nonnative species.
Ecosystems typically transcend the administrative boundaries of lands
managed by individual agencies in the department, as well as those of
other entities, such as states, communities, and private landowners.
Thus, the department‘s ecosystem management approach requires that all
parties collaborate to develop common visions of desired conditions for
ecosystems, as well as strategies and plans to implement these visions.
The department recently joined other entities in adopting strategies to
address excessive forest fuels and has several large ecosystem
management plans underway, such as the restoration of the South Florida
ecosystem. The department has also identified the growing number of
invasive species as a serious ecosystem health threat to the lands and
resources it manages.
Wildland Fire Challenges Still Persist:
Traditional management practices and the suppression of naturally
occurring fires that clear out undergrowth led to abnormally high
accumulations of forest fuels (largely brush and small trees) in recent
years. The increase in forest fuels has resulted in the outbreak of
more large, uncontrollable, and catastrophic fires that have destroyed
homes and seriously damaged soils, habitat, and watersheds. Although
firefighters were successful in suppressing 99 percent of all fires
during initial attack in 2002, catastrophic fires occurred and because
catastrophic fires respect no jurisdictional boundaries, their control
requires the coordination and collaboration of many federal, state,
local, and private entities. Controlling catastrophic fires poses two
difficult management challenges to the Department of the Interior.
First, there is the need to reduce accumulated fuels through a
combination of reintroducing fire that nature historically used for
this purpose (prescribed burns), and through mechanically removing
fuels where re-introduction of historic fire patterns is undesirable
(mechanical thinning). Second, there is a need to ensure that, until
abnormal accumulations are reduced, the department is able to
effectively and efficiently respond to the increasing numbers of large
fires, including the use of models that accurately identify the
geographic distribution of fire risks.
In 2002, we reported that, while the department undertook several
initiatives to address wildland fire challenges, its efforts suffered
from a lack of adequate performance measures on which to assess
progress, as well as difficulties in identifying priorities because of
inadequate data, models, and organizational structures for coordinating
with other entities.[Footnote 2] As a result, the department can
provide no assurance that it is making meaningful progress towards its
strategic goal of reducing the threats of catastrophic fires caused by
excessive forest fuels. The Interior‘s recent actions, including its
partnership with the Secretary of Agriculture in establishing the
Wildland Fire Leadership Council, are encouraging, but need to be
monitored closely by the Congress to better ensure their success.
In 2001, the Department of the Interior and the Department of
Agriculture (which includes the U.S. Forest Service) jointly adopted a
National Fire Plan to address hazardous fuel problems as well as to
address how to best manage large fires when they occurred. However, in
January 2002, over a year after the Congress substantially increased
funds to reduce hazardous forest fuels, we reported that the two
departments had still not established clearly defined and effective
leadership for implementing the National Fire Plan.[Footnote 3]
Furthermore, the two departments did not collaborate in identifying and
setting priorities for communities at high risk for wildland fire, as
emphasized in the plan, and instead completed these tasks separately
and differently. As a result, they could provide no assurance that the
increased funding appropriated by the Congress for reducing hazardous
forest fuel buildups was being allocated to the most seriously
threatened communities. There is an ongoing debate over the amount of
hazardous fuel reduction funds that should be devoted to wildland urban
interface communities versus more remote areas. In January 2002, we
also recommended that the Congress consider directing the Secretary of
Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to establish an
interagency council as recommended by the National Academy of Public
Administration.[Footnote 4] In April 2002, the Secretaries established
a Wildland Fire Leadership Council to work to achieve consistent and
coordinated efforts to implement the National Fire Plan.
Because the council was only recently created, it is too early to tell
whether this approach to leadership will succeed in overcoming the
coordination problems that we identified. However, we note that the
document creating the new council calls for each department to manage
its own activities and resources in pursuing objectives, and that
disagreements are to be resolved by elevating any disagreements within
each department rather than to a single decision maker. This approach
could potentially allow for the practice of pursuing separate, and
therefore not necessarily coordinated, efforts to continue.
In January 2002, we also reported that the departments had not
established performance measures for hazardous fuels reduction that
allowed assessment of their progress and provided a means for ensuring
that fuel reduction funds are spent in an efficient, effective, and
timely manner.[Footnote 5] For example, without such performance
measures, (1) high-risk communities have not been identified in order
of priority, (2) multiple strategies have been developed with different
goals and objectives, and (3) plans and reports have been developed
that do not describe what will be accomplished with appropriated funds.
Although officials from the departments told us they subsequently
pledged to develop common performance measures and have been further
directed to do so by the Office of Management and Budget, they also
told us that their data systems may not allow them to do so, a problem
that may take years to correct.
Similarly, in March 2002, we reported that the departments have not
effectively determined the amount of fire-fighting personnel and
equipment needed for responding to wildland fires.[Footnote 6]
Officials base their resource allocation decisions on computer models,
which currently include only information on equipment needed to fight
fires within each individual unit‘s boundaries and not equipment
available in adjacent jurisdictions. The departments are in the early
stages of replacing the models with an interagency, landscape fire
planning and budgeting system that is expected to provide a single,
uniform, and performance-based system for preparedness and fire
management planning. We are encouraged by this initiative but remain
concerned over its implementation because the departments have
acknowledged that, even with aggressive scheduling, full implementation
may take 4 to 6 years. Until then, fire management planning will not
comply with current fire policy, will remain focused within the
boundaries of each local federal unit, and continue to be conducted
based on each department‘s missions.
In March 2002, we also reported that about half of the individual land
management units did not have up-to-date fire management plans, or any
plans at all that would identify areas at high risk. The departments
acknowledge the need to complete and update their fire management
plans. Both departments have initiatives underway in response to the
renewed emphasis on fire management under the National Fire Plan.
Specifically, the departments are developing consistent procedures and
standards for fire management planning that will assist local units in
their efforts to have fire management plans that are in compliance with
the national fire policy. In the summer of 2002, the departments had a
strategy in place to accomplish this objective. However, developing the
procedures and standards and incorporating them into fire management
plans at all local units is not likely to occur until 2004, at the
earliest. Because it has been 7 years since the 1995 policy first
directed the departments to complete their fire management plans, and
the departments have given the issue low priority, it is critical that
the departments complete this initiative as expeditiously as possible.
To determine the funding needed for the resources necessary to fight
fires, the departments need to have consistent methods of recording
costs. Our March 2002 report found that the departments recorded costs
using different approaches. As a result, it will be difficult for
agency officials, the Congress, or other interested parties to develop
comparable data for analyzing these costs or make meaningful
comparisons of spending trends, further complicating effective
oversight and monitoring of fire-fighting costs. Such oversight will be
further complicated by the fact that, as in fuel reduction efforts, the
departments have not developed performance measures that would help
identify what has been achieved with the additional fire-fighting
funding already provided by the Congress since 2000. The departments
are now working together to develop a common set of wildland fire
management performance measures that will be results-oriented,
measurable, valid, and connected to the goals contained in the National
Fire Plan. However, agency officials estimate that the planned
completion date for developing and implementing these measures will be
late in fiscal year 2004--more than 4 years after the increased funding
was provided.
Management Challenges Hinder South Florida Ecosystem Restoration:
Management challenges could also hinder one of the department‘s most
significant environmental restoration initiatives--the restoration of
the South Florida ecosystem. The restoration seeks, over 50 years, to
increase the quantity of water and improve the quality of water
currently being drained or polluted in the ecosystem. The restoration
initiative also seeks to increase and restore natural habitats and to
make urban and natural systems more compatible.
Because the ecosystem covers 18,000 square miles and overlaps many
jurisdictions, the restoration requires the joint coordination and
collaboration of many entities--federal, state, and local governments,
Indian tribes, and private groups--to ensure the success of its various
ecosystem management efforts. The Secretary of the Interior, as chair
of a multi-agency task force on the restoration, facilitates and
coordinates these multiple efforts. Figure 1 depicts the relationship
of the entities participating in the restoration and the task force and
shows the long-term strategic goals established by the task force to
facilitate restoration.
Figure 1: Relationship of Entities in Restoration Efforts and Long-Term
Goals:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
In April 1999, we recommended that the task force develop a strategic
plan to identify how the restoration will occur, what resources will be
used, and how the overall restoration goals link to annual goals and
resources.[Footnote 7] Congress, which directed the development of the
strategic plan in response to our recommendations, requested that we
review the plan. Our review of this plan found that the task force had
made substantial progress in identifying the resources needed and the
agencies accountable for specific actions.[Footnote 8] However, we
found that the plan did not include several key elements, such as a
discussion of how the third goal of restoration--fostering the
compatibility of the built and natural systems--would be achieved or
how the end results that the task force expects to achieve are linked
to the restoration‘s long-term strategic goals. The plan also did not
link the strategic goals of the restoration to interim goals. The task
force has continued to refine the strategic plan and, as part of its
2002 update, included a discussion of how it plans to achieve the third
strategic goal and a table linking the end results that it expects to
achieve to subgoals and restoration projects. However, the task force
still does not consistently use quantifiable or numerical starting
points (baselines) or targets when discussing the end results or future
conditions that it expects to achieve and has yet to establish interim
goals that will allow it to gauge the actual progress being made.
Including these elements in future updates of the plan would fulfill
the requirement placed upon the task force by the Congress and provide
it with a basis for better assessing the progress of the restoration
and determining what refinements are needed.
In addition, the task force has not completed actions to improve the
organizational alignment and control of the restoration initiative.
Specifically, we recommended in 1999 that the department, as chair of
the task force, develop a conflict resolution process to improve
coordination among those participating in the restoration initiative.
We also recommended, in 2000, that the department and the task force
develop a joint plan to coordinate multiple land acquisitions. We
believe that without both coordinating actions, individual restoration
projects and the overall progress of the restoration could be delayed.
For example, two critical projects to restore the South Florida
ecosystem, underway since the early 1990s, have yet to be completed. A
portion of one project, which will send more water through the lower
end of Everglades National Park, has not been built because of
disagreements over the amount and quality of water that will be
involved. Another critical project was delayed because of a
disagreement with private landowners over the acquisition of a key
parcel of land. In an attempt to resolve these disagreements, the
department and the task force have developed a conflict resolution
process proposal that is still being refined, and, as of September
2002, had not been finally approved. Similarly, the department and the
task force have not yet approved a draft land-acquisition plan
developed by a task force subcommittee. Although the plan has been
discussed, as of September 2002, it had not been finally approved.
Until final decisions are made on these issues, we cannot determine
whether the actions will be sufficient to resolve our concerns.
Invasive Species Need to Be Controlled:
The department faces a growing challenge to ecosystem health in the
form of invasive species--harmful nonnative plants, animals, and
microorganisms. Invasive species, including the zebra mussel, the Asian
long-horned beetle, and purple loosestrife, can cause serious damage to
land, native species, other natural resources, and the economy. Such
damage results from the displacement of native species--including
plants, animals, and fish--with the nonnative species. In addition to
inflicting substantial ecological harm, the budgetary cost of managing
these species is high and is increasing. In fiscal years 1999 and 2000,
10 federal departments spent over $1 billion on invasive species
activities, including preventing the introduction of species, detecting
species that have been introduced, controlling species that have
spread, monitoring ecosystems affected by invasive species, researching
methods to control such species, and other activities involving public
outreach and information management. The department spent the second
largest amount of funds on these activities: $18 million in fiscal year
1999 and over $31 million in fiscal year 2000. Only the Department of
Agriculture spent more on invasive species management--close to $500
million in fiscal years 1999 and 2000, in large part to manage species
that threaten agricultural crops and livestock.
Invasive species present a management challenge to the Department of
the Interior because of the need to coordinate with many other federal
agencies, states, and even private entities to effectively manage the
problem. Invasive species can spread across federal, state, or private
lands, and early detection and rapid response are needed to prevent the
spread of new species and to control the further spread of species that
have already taken hold.
Interior is one of three cochairs of the National Invasive Species
Council, which issued a plan for managing invasive species in January
2001. The plan includes tasks such as development of a national system
for rapid response to new invasions and developing stronger
partnerships among federal, state, and local agencies and private
entities. In July 2001, we reported that the Department of Agriculture
is the only federal department with a systematic rapid response process
and that its coverage is primarily limited to pests affecting crops and
livestock.[Footnote 9] Agencies with responsibilities for natural
areas, such as the Department of the Interior and its agencies, often
respond in an ad-hoc manner. Determining who will lead efforts and take
on other rapid response responsibilities has hindered the ability to
eradicate new infestations. For example, an infestation of giant
salvinia--one of the most devastating aquatic weeds--found in the lower
Colorado River in 1999 affected federal, state, tribal, and private
land (see fig. 2). However, disagreements over which Department of the
Interior agency would lead the response to the infestation contributed
to a slow response and lost opportunity to eradicate the infestation.
Figure 2: A River Covered by Giant Salvinia:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
While several individual agencies within the Department of the Interior
have goals to remove invasive species from their lands, the department
has not established a similar departmentwide goal. According to the
department‘s Overview Strategic Plan for 2000 through 2005, the
department envisions creating a departmentwide goal to address the
challenge of invasive species. However, our work in October 2002 has
shown that the council‘s January 2001 plan does not have measurable
goals; nor does the department‘s strategic plan specifically include
references to items from the national management plan that the
department and its component agencies seek to accomplish.[Footnote 10]
Without such goals, the department cannot ensure that its funds will be
spent on the tasks identified for eliminating the most harmful or
widespread species or that it has coordinated as efficiently as
possible to accomplish this.
Increased demand for goods and services on federal lands, in addition
to increased presence of invasive species, means that the department is
likely to experience continuing conflicts and face many resource
deterioration problems. In their attempts to protect and restore
natural resources, the department and its agencies will likely continue
to apply and refine the concepts of ecosystem management. To ensure the
success of the approach, the department will need to address management
challenges such as aligning its strategic plans, coordinating multiple
agency goals, collaborating to achieve these goals, integrating data
related to goals and measures, and more. The department continues to
refine its strategic plans, long-term goals, and annual goals and
measures, and it has stated that it will seek to create common,
departmentwide goals. Accomplishing this would allow the department to
depict progress toward the overall goal of protecting the environment
and preserving the nation‘s natural and cultural resources.
Address Persistent Management Problems in Programs for Indians and
Island Communities:
As the department responsible for administering the federal
government‘s trust responsibilities to tribes and individual Indians,
Interior manages $3 billion in Indian trust funds and provides more
than $750 million annually for basic tribal services, such as social
services, tribal courts, and natural resource management. Over the
years, we have reported on the department‘s poor management of Indian
trust funds and programs. In the last 2 years, the department has taken
specific actions to address management problems, but significant
challenges remain. Despite the department‘s efforts, inadequate
accounting and information systems and internal controls, as well as
other weaknesses prevent the department from ensuring the funds are
properly managed. Management issues also impede the tribes‘ progress
toward self-determination, that is, tribal participation in and
management of programs previously administered on their behalf by the
federal government. In addition, the department has varying
responsibilities to seven island communities--four U.S. territories and
three sovereign island nations. The island governments have long-
standing financial and program management deficiencies.
Indian Trust Funds and Assets Need to Be More Effectively Managed:
The Secretary of the Interior administers the government‘s trust
responsibilities to tribes and individual Indians, including about $3
billion in Indian trust funds and about 54 million acres of Indian
lands. Management of Indian trust funds and assets has long been
plagued by inadequate financial management, such as poor accounting and
information systems; untrained and inexperienced staff; backlogs in
appraisals, determinations of ownership, and record-keeping; the lack
of a master lease file or accounts-receivable system; inadequate
written policies and procedures; and poor internal controls. As a
result, account holders have no assurance that their account balances
are accurate or that the trust assets are managed properly.
In April 1998, the department launched a major initiative incorporating
11 subprojects to solve these problems. The initiative called for
correcting administrative records for trust accounts, clarifying land
title and resource management information, eliminating probate
backlogs, and reviewing and changing the appraisal system for trust
lands. In February 2000, the department issued an update on its
progress in implementing the 11 subprojects. According to the report,
the department completed one subproject, which established a new trust
fund accounting and investment system, and continued to make progress
on the other subprojects.
In September 2000, we reported on the progress of another of the
subprojects included in the initiative--the acquisition of a new system
to manage trust assets.[Footnote 11] We found that the department had
taken some steps to install the processes, practices, and discipline to
successfully guide the acquisition. However, we found some shortcomings
and recommended that the department develop key components of an
information systems technology architecture and examine and revise the
business processes that the system will support. The department
reported in an August 2002 status report that the first phase of its
architecture project had been completed and that documentation and
planning initiatives to begin a formal ’trust“ architectural program
within the department had been initiated. The status report also noted
that the department, in an effort to reengineer its trust business
processes, had begun creating an ’as is“ business model of trust asset
management and that when the as-is model is completed, the department
will, in partnership with tribal representatives, create a new model
for trust asset management. Until these matters are fully addressed,
the department will continue to face significant challenges to ensuring
that the new trust system will operate efficiently and effectively.
In July 2002, the Department of the Interior‘s Office of Historical
Trust Accounting issued a report to the Congress containing a plan for
an accounting for all Individual Indian Money (IIM) accounts.[Footnote
12] The plan proposes to gather transaction records, including as many
as 500 million documents, to reconstruct the history of each IIM
account. We reported in July 2002 that the department was likely to
encounter obstacles, which could hinder its ability to successfully
complete this endeavor.[Footnote 13]
Beginning in late 2001, the department‘s efforts to reform the
management of Indian trust funds intersected with the department‘s
overall problems with information security. On December 5, 2001, the
effect of accumulated information technology security weaknesses
resulted in a Temporary Restraining Order that required the department
to immediately disconnect from the Internet all information technology
systems that house or provide access to individual Indian trust data.
Some of these systems were down for months. As of September 30, 2002, a
small percentage of the department‘s systems remained out of operation.
Although the department‘s consolidated financial statements for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, received an unqualified audit
opinion, the management of Indian trust funds and information security
were both reported as material internal control weaknesses by the
financial statement auditors. The department also identified both of
these issues as mission critical material weaknesses under the Federal
Managers‘ Financial Integrity Act. In our 2001 High-Risk Series, and
again in our 2003 High-Risk Series update (see GAO-03-121, January
2003), we identified information security as a governmentwide high risk
area.
Management Issues Impede Progress toward Self-Determination:
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is the primary federal agency
charged with implementing federal Indian policy and administering the
federal trust responsibility for 1.7 million American Indians and
Native Alaskans. BIA provides basic services to federally recognized
Indian tribes throughout the United States, including social services,
child welfare services, and natural resources management. Between March
2000 and July 2002, the number of federally recognized tribes eligible
to receive services increased from 556 to 562. Administrative decisions
to recognize new tribes became increasingly controversial because of
land use issues and Indian gaming. Once tribes are recognized, they
have two ways of influencing the programs that affect them. First, they
can work with BIA to allocate a portion of BIA‘s budget to programs
that the tribes choose. The funds, which account for nearly half of
BIA‘s budget, are then distributed through a process called tribal
priority allocations. Second, under the Indian Self-Determination Act,
tribes can establish self-determination contracts to manage some of the
programs that BIA has traditionally managed on their behalf.
The federal recognition of an Indian tribe can have a tremendous effect
on the tribe, surrounding communities, and the nation as a whole.
Recognized tribes and their members have access to about $2 billion in
programs and services through BIA. Additionally, recognition
establishes a formal government-to-government relationship between the
United States and a tribe. The quasi-sovereign status created by this
relationship exempts certain tribal lands from most state and local
laws and regulations--including, where applicable, laws regulating
gaming.
In 1978, BIA established a regulatory process intended to provide a
uniform and objective approach to recognizing tribes. The process
requires groups that petition for recognition to submit evidence that
they meet certain criteria--basically that the petitioner has continued
to exist as a political and social community descended from a historic
tribe. In November 2001, we reported that, because of weaknesses in the
recognition process, the basis for BIA‘s tribal recognition decisions
is not always clear and the length of time involved can be
substantial.[Footnote 14] We recommended that BIA provide a clear
understanding of the basis used in recognition decisions and develop a
strategy that identifies how to improve the responsiveness of the
tribal recognition process. Without improvements that focus on fixing
these problems, confidence in the regulatory process as an objective
and efficient approach to making tribal recognition decisions will
continue to erode. BIA generally agreed with our findings and
recommendations and has developed a plan to improve the tribal
recognition process.
Once a tribe is recognized, BIA‘s budget formulation and execution
process, specifically its distribution of tribal priority allocation
funds, is not responsive to changes in the relative needs of the
tribes. Furthermore, there is no assurance that the funds are
effectively targeting the most pressing needs among tribes. In fiscal
year 2002, about $750 million was allocated with the participation of
individual tribes. In July 1998, we reported that BIA‘s distribution to
each tribe was based largely on historical factors, that is, the amount
available to a tribe generally remained unchanged from year to
year.[Footnote 15] This method did not consider a tribe‘s changing
needs.
In response to our July 1998 report, the Congress directed BIA to
develop alternate methods of distributing tribal priority allocations.
In its 1999 task force report on tribal priority funds, BIA
acknowledged that funding inequities exist among the tribes but
concluded--with the concurrence of the tribes--that the current
distribution of funds should not be redistributed to address those
inequities. Instead, BIA concluded that future increases in funding
should be targeted at tribes that need greater funding. BIA is striving
to develop program-specific criteria that could be used to target any
future funding increases to tribes with the greatest needs.
To compound the tribes‘ difficulties in collecting funds for self-
determination, tribes have not received adequate funds to cover the
costs of supporting Indian self-determination contracts. Over half of
BIA‘s budget, including some tribal priority funds, is provided to
tribes through contracts. Tribes use these funds to help pay for the
indirect and administrative costs for contracts. However, total
shortfalls in this area reached about $25 million in fiscal year 1997.
These losses reflect a trend underway since fiscal year 1995. (See fig.
3.):
Figure 3: BIA‘s Contract Support Cost Shortfalls, Fiscal Years 1995-
2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Note: GAO analysis of BIA data.
According to tribes, these shortfalls have either forced a reduction in
the services available to tribal members or caused tribes to use their
own limited resources, thereby prohibiting the further development of
tribal businesses or supplemental services. Most significantly, these
shortfalls led the Congress to place a moratorium on contracting for
BIA programs for fiscal year 1999. Although no moratoriums have been
imposed since 1999, that course of action remains a possibility until a
permanent solution to these shortfalls is found. To avoid further
moratoriums, in our June 1999 report, we developed alternatives for the
Congress to consider in funding contract support costs.[Footnote 16]
The 106TH Congress considered a legislative proposal on contract
support costs, but it was not enacted. We also recommended in our June
1999 report that BIA and the Indian Health Service (within the
Department of Health and Human Services) develop a consistent policy on
contract support costs. Both the BIA and the Indian Health Service
agreed that they need to develop a consistent policy on contract
support costs. Staff with the Office of Management and Budget is
reviewing BIA‘s and the Indian Health Service‘s policies on contract
support costs. Unless these problems are resolved, they will likely
continue to impede tribal contracting of programs.
Improve Effectiveness and Accountability for Island Programs:
The Secretary of the Interior has varying responsibilities to the
island communities of American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands; all of which are
U.S. territories--as well as the Federated States of Micronesia, the
Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau, which are
sovereign nations linked with the United States through Compacts of
Free Association (Compact). The Office of Insular Affairs (OIA) carries
out the department‘s responsibilities for the island communities. OIA‘s
mission is to assist the island communities in developing more
efficient and effective government by providing financial and technical
assistance and to help manage federal-island relations by promoting
appropriate federal policies. The island governments have long-standing
financial and program management deficiencies. Specially, island
governments experience difficulties in accurately accounting for
expenditures, collecting taxes and other revenues, controlling the
level of expenditures, and delivering program services.
In January 2002, we reported on the effectiveness and accountability of
U.S. programs, loans, and services provided to the Federated States of
Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands.[Footnote 17] We
found that 9 of the 13 programs, which had originally been designed for
the United States, faced a variety of problems operating in developing
island nations because of differing geographic, economic, and social
conditions. Also, the two nations‘ administration of the programs
generally did not ensure financial accountability. In all, 9 of the 13
programs we reviewed experienced accountability problems, including 5
programs that experienced instances of theft or misuse of program
funds. There were also shortcomings in the department‘s oversight of
these programs.
The United States and these two island nations are currently
negotiating new Compact provisions. The Compact provisions that deal
with economic assistance are scheduled to expire in late 2003. The
U.S.‘s Compact proposals address many of our recommendations for
increased accountability, such as targeting grants to priority areas
such as health, education, and infrastructure; defining the items to be
discussed at annual consultations between the United States and the two
countries; and requiring U.S. approval before either country can pledge
or issue future Compact funds as a source to repay debt.
None of these management issues will be resolved easily or within a
short time frame. The department will need to continue its efforts to
resolve deficiences in its management of Indian trust funds and place a
high priority on solving these problems. In addition, in response to
reoprts from BIA, the National Congress of American Indians, and us,
the Congress held hearings in the last few years and proposed reform
legislation to address some of these issues. Indian self-determinationn
will stay at the forefront of annual appropriations‘ debates, as will
the long-term debate over the course of federal Indian policy. In
addition, the department will need to continue to work with the island
communities to improve accountability and to improve the effectiveness
of U.S. assistance.
Improve Management of National Parks:
The Department of the Interior, and specifically the National Park
Service, has strategic goals to protect and preserve the natural,
historic, and cultural resources entrusted to its care while providing
the public safe and enjoyable visits. However, while the Park Service
has made strides in addressing its management challenges, it continues
to face significant management challenges. Currently, these challenges
include giving a high priority to collecting better scientific
information on the condition of its resources to ensure that its
planning and funding processes address the most pressing needs and
addressing persistent management problems in its concessions program.
The Park Service acknowledges the challenges it faces in both of these
areas. The agency has begun a number of initiatives that should, if
fully and properly implemented, go far in addressing the resource and
concessions management challenges we have reported. However, while the
initiatives now underway will help, as now planned, it will take years
to get them fully and properly implemented. In the interim, the Park
Service will need a sustained commitment to ensure that the remaining
work gets done in order to realize the benefits of their efforts.
Park Service Does Not Know Condition of Many Resources:
A fundamental part of the Park Service‘s mission is to be the caretaker
of many of this nation‘s most precious natural and cultural resources,
ranging from the fragile ecosystems of Arches National Park in Utah, to
the historic structures of Philadelphia‘s Independence Hall, to the
granite faces of Mount Rushmore in South Dakota. Although the Park
Service acknowledges, and its policies emphasize, the importance of
managing parks on the basis of sound scientific information about
resources, such information management is seriously deficient.
Frequently, baseline information about natural and cultural resources
is incomplete or nonexistent, making it difficult for park managers to
clearly ascertain the condition of resources and whether resources are
deteriorating, improving, or staying the same. At the same time, many
park resources face significant threats, including air pollution,
vandalism, and nearby land development. However, even when these
threats are known, the Park Service has limited scientific knowledge
about their severity and possible impact on affected resources.
According to the Park Service, steps are being taken to improve the
situation. Specifically, the Congress is funding the Park Service‘s
Natural Resources Inventory and Monitoring Program to a level
sufficient to develop needed information on basic natural resource
inventories. This funding has enabled the agency to begin to build
reliable natural resources inventories and baseline data that can be
used, when completed, to monitor the condition of natural resources
throughout the park system. In addition, increased funding for
vegetation mapping has enabled the Park Service to increase its
capacity to produce these vital inventories. The Park Service is also
receiving funding that will permit it to continue to establish and
develop a vital signs monitoring program in parks with extensive
natural resources. Further, the Park Service is continuing to improve
its efforts to catalogue cultural resources and has begun efforts to
preserve many prehistoric and historic sites.
While each of these recent initiatives are positive and encouraging
steps, the process of collecting and analyzing all of the information
needed to have an adequate scientific knowledge base about park
resources will take years and will be costly. Dealing with this
challenge will require a long-term commitment from the Park Service,
the administration, and the Congress to the priority now being placed
on acquiring these critical resource data. Of course, doing this will
require difficult choices about competing priorities, how parks are
managed, and how budgets are formulated. However, unless it acquires
better information on the condition of its resources--natural,
cultural, and historic--the Park Service will continue to face
difficulties in its efforts to (1) shift existing resources among
competing priorities to accomplish its goals and objectives; (2) rank
priorities so that the most pressing issues receive the most attention;
(3) link the planning process directly to budget decisions to have a
greater impact on the allocation of new limited resources; and (4)
measure program results aimed at preserving and protecting the
resources entrusted to it.
Management Problems Continue to Plague the Concessions Program:
Concessionaires play a critical role in providing services to many of
the almost 280 million visitors to the national park system each year.
Concessionaires are private businesses that operate under contracts
with the Park Service to provide facilities and services, such as
lodging, food, merchandising, marinas, and various guided services.
Currently, there are over 630 concessionaires providing visitor
services throughout the national park system. In fiscal year 2000 these
businesses grossed over $800 million in revenues and employed over
25,000 people during peak seasons.
For many years, we have joined the Congress, the Department of the
Interior‘s Office of the Inspector General, and Park Service staff in
raising concerns about the need for better management of the agency‘s
concession program. In our March 2000 report, we identified fundamental
problems with the Park Service‘s overall approach to managing the
concessions program.[Footnote 18] These management problems center on
three areas: (1) human capital issues, involving inadequate
qualifications and training of the agency‘s concession specialists and
concessions contracting staff; (2) acquisition management issues,
including the agency‘s out-of-date practices in handling its
contracting workload and chronic backlog of expired contracts; and (3)
organizational control issues, including a lack of accountability
within the concessions program. Because of these management problems,
the Park Service frequently has difficulty managing the performance of
its concessionaires to ensure a consistent level of quality and safety
in the services and facilities they provide.
To increase the effectiveness of the Park Service‘s concessions
management program, we recommended, in March 2000, that the Park
Service improve the qualifications of its concession staff (including
improving their training in writing and administering contracts),
contract for these services, or use some combination of the two
approaches. The agency could also contract for expertise in certain
functions while developing expertise in-house for other functions.
However, both options require that the Park Service better manage its
human capital to ensure it selects, trains, develops, and manages
concession staff with the skills needed to realize improvements in the
program. The agency generally agreed with these proposals. In response,
the Park Service has acted to address some of its concessions program
management problems. For example, the Park Service has contracted with
a private firm to analyze its organizational structure and advise it on
reengineering its business processes. It is also developing a
certification program in hospitality management with a focus on
business and financial skills and a contracting certification program.
Further, Park Service officials stated that they are recruiting
students from top business schools to hire as full-time concession
personnel where needed. In addition, the Park Service is considering
contracting out complex financial components of the concession program,
developing a funding strategy to address the need for centralized and
consistent program oversight, and updating its contracting practices to
include performance-based contracting. We believe that these actions
are positive and encouraging steps and, when fully implemented, will
help improve the agency‘s ability to manage concessioner activities.
Address Challenges in Managing Land Exchanges and Appraisals:
The Department of the Interior manages the use of over 500 million
acres of federal lands for many different purposes. The department is
the steward of numerous parks, forests, grasslands, wetlands, and other
natural areas, some of which are interspersed with state, local, or
privately owned lands. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages 264
million acres of public lands and the subsurface minerals on more than
560 million acres. The Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for 92
million acres of refuges and wetlands. The Park Service manages about
80 million acres of parks, historic sites, monuments, and preserves. To
protect and preserve the health of our public lands and to improve
efficiency and remove barriers to resource protection and management,
the department‘s component agencies seek to consolidate and protect
federal lands by acquiring, exchanging, or, in some cases, receiving
donated lands. Land exchanges involve the mutually agreeable trading of
federal lands for those owned by corporations, individuals, or state
and local governments. While the sound management of land transactions
is not one of the department‘s strategic or performance goals, the
department continues to encounter several difficulties when managing
these transactions.
Over the years, the Department of the Interior‘s Inspector General and
we have determined that the land exchanges completed by BLM to date
have not ensured that the lands being exchanged were appropriately
valued or protected the public interest. In exchanging lands, federal
agencies are required under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
of 1976 to determine that the exchange serves the public interest. In
addition, the law requires that the lands exchanged be of equal value,
or equalized by a payment of money. Our work has shown that poor
financial management and controls have resulted in exchanges that were
not of equal value. For example, in July 2001, the Inspector General
reported that BLM did not sufficiently emphasize the independence and
objectivity of the appraisal process or ensure that appraisal reviews
complied with appraisal standards involving a land acquisition in
Utah.[Footnote 19] The Inspector General concluded that BLM‘s appraisal
approach did not provide assurance that lands were properly appraised
and valued. In March 2001, we reported that appraisals the Park Service
used for a land exchange in northern Virginia, incorrectly valued the
land interests that were exchanged because of flawed assumptions about
one parcel and an inadequate assessment of the other.[Footnote 20] Our
assessment indicated that the Park Service could have received more
than $15 million rather than owing the developer $14 million, if the
exchanged interests had been appropriately valued.
Land exchanges are inherently difficult to manage because the lands
being exchanged have to be of approximately equal value and because
estimates of market value are difficult to determine, especially when
the properties being valued are unique or when the market is
speculative. This inherent difficulty, when combined with the
deficiencies that the Inspector General and we found with the program,
led us to recommend in a June 2000 report that the Congress consider
discontinuing BLM‘s land exchange program.[Footnote 21] As this has not
yet occurred, we believe that this matter warrants continued attention
from the department.
BLM has taken steps to improve the land exchange and appraisal
processes. In 1998, BLM formed a team to review proposed exchanges that
are of high value or are considered controversial. Currently, all land
exchange proposals are to be reviewed by the state director and receive
a technical review by the land exchange team. However, the national
review team is not fully staffed--two of the three positions are
currently vacant--making the effectiveness of the team questionable. In
addition, the Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management is
now required to review all land exchanges valued at over $500,000. BLM
has also revised the appraisal manual, revised its policies to require
state certification of appraisers, provided appraisers guidance on
conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice, and developed an appraisal training course that appraisers
are required to attend. In addition, in early fiscal year 2002, BLM
contracted with the Appraisal Foundation to conduct a review of the
agency‘s appraisal organization, policies, and procedures. BLM received
a draft copy of the report from the Appraisal Foundation in August
2002. In response to the findings in the Appraisal Foundation report,
BLM, in October 2002, announced that it would undertake a 90-day review
of all land exchanges that were in process or being considered. BLM
also announced the formation of a comprehensive working group that will
conduct a top-to-bottom evaluation of the land exchange and appraisal
process including an analysis of recommendations contained in various
Inspector General and GAO reports. It is expected that the working
group will report to the department specific changes in the land
exchange and appraisal process.
Address Deferred Maintenance Backlog:
In addition to the challenges the department faces in adequately
maintaining the natural resources under its stewardship, the department
also faces a challenge in adequately maintaining its facilities and
infrastructure. The department owns, builds, purchases, and contracts
services for assets such as visitor centers, schools, office buildings,
roads, bridges, dams, irrigation systems, and reservoirs. These assets
include some deteriorating facilities for which repair and maintenance
have not been adequately funded. The repair and maintenance on these
assets has been postponed for years due to budgetary constraints. These
unfunded repair and maintenance needs for the department‘s facilities
and infrastructure are referred to as the deferred maintenance backlog.
The deterioration of facilities can adversely impact public health and
safety, reduce employees‘ morale and productivity, and increase the
need for costly major repairs or early replacement of structures and
equipment. In February 2002, the department estimated that the deferred
maintenance backlog was between $8.1 billion and $11.4 billion (see
table 1). The maintenance needs for Park Service and BIA facilities
account for over 85 percent of the departmentwide deferred maintenance
backlog. Over the years, we have reported on (1) the Park Service‘s
inability to adequately assess the scope of its maintenance needs, (2)
deficiencies in the Park Service‘s structural fire safety activities,
and (3) the deferred maintenance backlog for BIA school facilities.
Table 1: Department of the Interior‘s Estimate of Deferred Maintenance:
Dollars in billions; [Empty]; [Empty].
Bureau; Estimated range of deferred maintenance.
Low estimate; High estimate.
National Park Service; $4.08; $6.80.
Bureau of Indian Affairs; 2.95; 3.04.
Fish and Wildlife Service; 0.84; 1.14.
Bureau of Land Management; 0.19; 0.33.
U.S. Geological Survey; 0.06; 0.10.
Bureau of Reclamation; 0.03; 0.03.
Total; $8.15; $11.44.
[End of table]
Source: Department of the Interior.
Park Service Does Not Know Extent of Maintenance Problems:
The Park Service maintains 16,000 permanent structures, 8,000 miles of
roads, 1,500 bridges, 5,385 housing units, about 1,500 water and
wastewater systems, 200 radio systems, more than 400 dams, and more
than 200 solid waste operations. These facilities include numerous
cultural and historic buildings and structures, complex utility
systems, and an extensive network of roads and trails to be maintained
at an operational level that ensures continued protection,
preservation, and serviceability.
Despite the importance of its maintenance program, the Park Service has
yet to accurately assess or define the scope of its maintenance needs.
Since the late 1980s, we have reported on the Park Service‘s inability
to properly maintain its facilities. Even though a major part of the
agency‘s mission is being a steward for many of our natural, cultural,
and historic treasures, it has not been able to successfully perform
this critical part of its mission. In the meantime, the condition and
utility of much of its invaluable assets are deteriorating. There are a
number of contributory causes to this situation. Most important among
them is that the agency does not have an accurate inventory of the
assets that need to be maintained, nor accurate data on the condition
of these assets. As a result, the agency is unable to determine what
its maintenance needs are; how much money is needed to address them;
and how much, if any, progress is being made toward closing the
maintenance gap.
The agency acknowledges the problem and is developing an approach to
address it. Spurred by congressional concerns and new federal
accounting standards, the Park Service initiated the design of a new
asset management process that, among other things, is to provide the
agency with a systematic method for documenting deferred maintenance
needs and tracking progress in reducing the amount of deferred
maintenance. As now planned, this new process, will, for the first
time, enable the agency to have a (1) reliable inventory of its assets,
(2) process for reporting on the condition of each asset, and (3)
systemwide methodology for estimating deferred maintenance costs.
However, while the design of this new process is complete, it is just
now being implemented. Consequently, while the new process is
promising, its success cannot yet be determined.
The Park Service Is Not Meeting Safety Responsibilities in Many of Its
Structures:
The Park Service is responsible for ensuring that the buildings and
artifacts entrusted to it are protected and that the people who visit
or work in them are safe from undue hazards or risks. Today, the Park
Service is the steward for over 30,000 structures and over 80 million
artifacts nationwide. These structures include hotels, motels, cabins,
visitor centers, interpretative centers, and historic buildings, such
as many former presidents‘ homes. However, we reported in May 2000 that
the structural fire safety efforts in several national parks we visited
were not effective.[Footnote 22] The Park Service‘s structural fire
activity lacks many elementary components required for any effective
fire safety effort. These gaps include such fundamental things as
inadequate fire training for employees, inadequate or nonexistent fire
inspections, and--for many buildings--inadequate or nonexistent fire
detection or suppression systems. These situations create many fire
safety hazards. Such conditions jeopardize the safety of park visitors,
employees, buildings, and artifacts, making the structures and
artifacts vulnerable to fire that could inevitably cause damage,
destruction, severe injury, and even the loss of life. For example,
during our visit to the Ford National Theatre in Washington, D.C., for
our May 2000 report, we found that boxes were impeding the
effectiveness of fire sprinklers (see fig. 4).
Figure 4: Boxes Impeding Effectiveness of Fire Sprinkler in Storage
Area of the Ford National Theatre, Washington, D.C.
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
[End of figure] - graphic text:
In its February 2002 Annual Departmental Report on Accountability
(which covered fiscal year 2001), the Department of the Interior
identified the Park Service‘s inadequate structural fire program as a
mission critical material weakness.[Footnote 23] According to the
report, to address this weakness the Park Service will develop and
implement a comprehensive structural fire program plan as directed by
Congress. The plan will include specific milestones to address the
operational, organizational, technical, and staffing deficiencies
cited in our May 2000 report and the July 2000 congressional hearing on
the Park Service‘s fire safety failures.[Footnote 24] The targeted
completion date for this corrective action is 2004. The Congress should
continue to monitor the Park Service‘s progress in improving its
structural fire program.
Deferred Maintenance for BIA Schools Continues to Be a Problem:
In school year 1999--2000, BIA had 47,080 students enrolled in its 171
schools. Over 70 percent of the schools are located in four states--
Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota, and South Dakota. In December 1997,
we reported that BIA‘s inventory of repairs needed for its educational
facilities was $754 million.[Footnote 25] This estimate included the
cost of repairs to all school buildings, including dormitories for
students and employee housing. The needed repairs included, among other
things, addressing health and safety deficiencies, providing access for
persons with disabilities, and addressing noncompliance with other
building codes. At that time, BIA‘s deferred maintenance backlog was
based on an amalgam of information collected by architects, engineers,
and BIA staff over the years.
In September 2001, we reported that the deferred maintenance backlog
for BIA educational facilities had grown to $962 million--an increase
of about 39 percent since 1997.[Footnote 26] This revised deferred
maintenance figure was validated by an independent engineering firm.
More than $127 million of the backlog total represents deficiencies
related to the health and safety of students, and a significant portion
of this ($44 million) relates to fire safety alone. For example, the
backlog lists buildings at more than 100 schools that need to have
their fire alarm systems replaced or upgraded because they are old, not
working, or missing. In fiscal year 2001, BIA received a total of
$777.6 million to support the operations of its schools and address
educational facility needs. This amount represented a substantial (30
percent) increase over fiscal year 2000 funding levels. Nearly all of
the increase was intended for the repair or replacement of school
facilities; funding for school operations increased only moderately.
Our September 2001 report also noted that, while the Congress had
recently increased funding to address the deferred maintenance backlog
for BIA schools, the budget allocations for the repair and maintenance
of these facilities have generally been less than amounts recommended
by national guidelines.
To address this departmentwide challenge, the department established
the Interior Planning, Design, and Construction Council (Council) to
study deferred maintenance. The Council consists of engineering and
construction personnel from all the component agencies. In February
1998, the Council issued a report entitled Facilities Maintenance
Assessment and Recommendations, which detailed that there was no
departmentwide consistency in maintenance and repair issues. From the
recommendations in the February 1998 study evolved the Facility
Condition Assessment guide to standardize component agencies‘ deferred
maintenance estimates, guidelines for prioritizing the repair of
facilities with deferred maintenance, and Five-Year Facilities
Maintenance and Capital Improvement Plans, which were first implemented
in fiscal year 2000. In 2002 (for the development of their fiscal year
2004 budget requests), the component agencies were asked to rank and
prioritize projects with the highest emphasis on critical deferred
maintenance needs in health and safety, resource protection, and agency
mission.
Correct Weaknesses in Internal Controls over Financial Reporting:
The department‘s independent auditors issued an unqualified opinion on
the department‘s consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year
ended 2001. However, the auditors reported several concerns related to
financial management in their audit of the department‘s consolidated
financial statements for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2001.[Footnote 27] Theauditors‘ consideration of internal control over
financial reporting identified 15 reportable conditions; 6 of which
were considered to be material weaknesses.[Footnote 28] Further, the
auditors identified four instances of noncompliance with laws and
regulations.
The six reported material weaknesses involved (1) general and
application controls over financial management systems; (2) timeliness
of transaction entry and reconciliation; (3) controls over undelivered
orders and accruals; (4) controls over property, plant, and equipment;
(5) reconciliation of intradepartmental and intragovernmental
transactions; and (6) Indian trust-fund management controls.
The department does not have adequate information technology security
and general controls to protect its financial information systems,
which could affect its ability to prevent and detect unauthorized
changes to financial information, control electronic access to
sensitive information, and protect its information resources. To its
benefit, the department has issued security policies, accelerated
programs with emphasis on trust and financial systems, fast-tracked
development of certain aspects of the Information Technology (IT)
Security Plan, and developed performance measurement criteria for IT
security compliance.
The department does not consistently record financial transactions or
analyze its financial records in a timely manner, nor does it routinely
and consistently reconcile the general ledger accounts to subsidiary
ledgers and other supporting documentation. In addition, internal
controls were not fully implemented to ensure that obligations are
liquidated and liabilities are accrued for goods and services received
prior to the end of the reporting period and that funds are de-
obligated in a timely manner. Lastly, the department does not
periodically reconcile its intradepartmental or intragovernmental
activity and balances. The auditors made several recommendations for
improving these areas, which the department hoped to implement in
fiscal year 2002.
Property, plant and equipment (PP&E) is also a significant financial
management concern for the department, with a reported $16.5 billion,
net of accumulated depreciation, representing almost one-third of its
total assets as of September 30, 2001. The auditors identified numerous
issue areas where improvements are needed--including untimely recording
of acquisitions and disposals, inefficiencies in reconciliation of
subsidiary ledgers to general ledgers for PP&E, an ineffective
inventory process, improper recording of transfers within and to the
department, need for a complete and accurate inventory system to track
land and land rights, inconsistent use of construction in progress
reconciliations, and needed controls over recording of depreciation.
Accurate financial information is crucial to making sound decisions and
controlling assets so that the department‘s mission and goals are
efficiently and effectively accomplished.
The independent auditors‘ tests for compliance with the Federal
Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA) of 1996 disclosed
instances where the department‘s financial management systems did not
substantially comply with federal financial management systems
requirements, federal accounting standards, or the United States
government standard general ledger at the transaction level. Further,
the results of test of compliance with certain provisions of laws and
regulations exclusive of FFMIA disclosed instances of noncompliance
with the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, the Prompt Payment
Act, and Section 113 of Public Law 104-208-Advances for Interior
Franchise Fund.
Successfully completing efforts to correct these material weaknesses
and other reportable conditions will be a key milestone for Interior.
Such efforts can help in identifying needs and anticipating changes in
the financial and operating environment in order that timely and
reliable financial and performance information can be produced on a
routine basis.
[End of section]
GAO Contacts:
Subject(s) covered in this report: Improve ecosystem restoration
efforts; ; Management issues impede progress towards self-
determination; ; Improve management of the national parks; ; Address
challenges in managing land exchanges and appraisals; ; Address
deferred maintenance backlog; Contact persons: Barry T. Hill, Director;
Natural Resources and Environment; (202)512-3841; hillb@gao.gov.
Subject(s) covered in this report: Indian trust funds and assets need
to be more effectively managed; ; Correct weaknesses in internal
controls over financial reporting; Contact persons: McCoy Williams,
Director; Financial Management and Assurance; (202)512-6906;
williamsm@gao.gov.
Subject(s) covered in this report: Security of information; Contact
persons: Robert F. Dacey, Director; Information Technology; (202)512-
3317.
Subject(s) covered in this report: Improve effectiveness and
accountability for island programs; Contact persons: Susan S. Westin,
Managing Director; International Affairs and Trade; (202)512-4128.
Subject(s) covered in this report: Deferred maintenance for BIA schools
continues to be a problem; Contact persons: Marnie S. Shual, Director;
Education, Workforce and Income Security; (202)512-7215;
shaulm@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Performance and Accountability Series:
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: A Governmentwide
Perspective. GAO-01-241. Washington, D.C.: January 2001.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of the
Interior. GAO-01-249. Washington, D.C.: January 2001.
High-Risk Series: An Update. GAO-01-263. Washington, D.C.: January
2001.
Preserving and Restoring Ecosystems:
Wildland Fires:
Wildland Fire Management: Reducing the Threat of Wildland Fires
Requires Sustained and Coordinated Effort. GAO-02-843T. Washington,
D.C.: June 13, 2002.
Wildland Fire Management: Improved Planning Will Help Agencies Better
Identify Fire-Fighting Preparedness Needs. GAO-02-158. Washington,
D.C.: March 29, 2002.
Severe Wildland Fires: Leadership and Accountability Needed to Reduce
Risks to Communities and Resources. GAO-02-259. Washington, D.C.:
January 31, 2002.
Reducing Wildfire Threats: Funds Should Be Targeted to the Highest Risk
Areas. GAO/T-RCED-00-296. Washington, D.C.: September 13, 2000.
Fire Management: Lessons Learned From the Cerro Grand (Los Alamos) Fire
and Actions Needed to Reduce Fire Risks. GAO/T-RCED-00-273. Washington,
D.C.: August 14, 2000.
Federal Wildfire Activities: Current Strategy and Issues Needing
Attention. GAO/RCED-99-233. Washington, D.C.: August 13, 1999.
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration:
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration: Substantial Progress Made in
Developing a Strategic Plan, but Actions Still Needed. GAO-01-36.
Washington, D.C.: March 27, 2001.
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration: A Land Acquisition Plan Would Help
Identify Lands That Need to Be Acquired. GAO/RCED-00-84. Washington,
D.C.: April 5, 2000.
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration: An Overall Strategic Plan and a
Decision-Making Process Are Needed to Keep the Effort on Track. GAO/
RCED-99-121. Washington, D.C.: April 22, 1999.
Invasive Species:
Invasive Species: Clearer Focus and Greater Commitment Needed to
Effectively Manage the Problem. GAO-03-01. Washington, D.C.: October
22, 2002.
Invasive Species: Obstacles Hinder Federal Rapid Response to Growing
Threat. GAO-01-724. Washington, D.C.: July 24, 2001.
Invasive Species: Federal and Selected State Funding to Address
Harmful, Nonnative Species. GAO/RCED-00-219. Washington, D.C.: August
24, 2000.
Managing Indian Trust Responsibilities and Island Communities:
Indian Trust Funds:
Indian Trust Funds: Individual Indian Accounts. GAO-02-970T.
Washington, D.C.: July 25, 2002.
Indian Trust Funds: Tribal Account Balances. GAO-02-420T. Washington,
D.C.: February 7, 2002.
Information Security: Weak Controls Place Interior‘s Financial and
Other Data at Risk. GAO-01-615. Washington, D.C.: July 3, 2001.
Indian Trust Funds: Improvements Made to Strengthen Management of New
Asset and Accounting System but Significant Risks Remain. GAO/AIMD-00-
259. Washington, D.C.: September 15, 2000.
Indian Trust Funds: Challenges Facing Interior‘s Implementation of New
Trust Asset and Accounting Management System. GAO/T-AIMD-99-238.
Washington, D.C.: July 14, 1999.
Indian Trust Funds: Interior Lacks Assurance That Trust Improvement
Plan Will Be Effective. GAO/AIMD-99-53. Washington, D.C.: April 28,
1999.
Indian Trust Funds: Status of Department of the Interior‘s Plan for
Improving Trust Fund Management. GAO/AIMD-98-169R. Washington, D.C.:
May 28, 1998.
Financial Management: Recommendations on Indian Trust Fund Strategic
Plan Proposals. GAO/AIMD-98-37. Washington, D.C.: November 26, 1997.
Indian Self-Determination:
Indian Issues: Improvements Needed in Tribal Recognition Process. GAO-
02-49. Washington, D.C.: November 2, 2001.
Federal Tort Claims Act: Issues Affecting Coverage for Tribal Self-
Determination Contracts. GAO/RCED-00-169. Washington, D.C.: July 5,
2000.
Indian Self-Determination Act: Shortfalls in Indian Contract Support
Costs Need to Be Addressed. GAO/RCED-99-150. Washington, D.C.: June 30,
1999.
Indian Programs: Tribal Priority Allocations Do Not Target the Neediest
Tribes. GAO/RCED-98-181. Washington, D.C.: July 17, 1998.
Island Communities:
Compact of Free Association: An Assessment of Current U.S. Proposals to
Extend Assistance. GAO-02-857T. Washington, D.C.: July 17, 2002.
Foreign Assistance: Effectiveness and Accountability Problems Common in
U.S. Programs to Assist Two Micronesian Nations. GAO-02-70. Washington,
D.C.: January 22, 2002.
Foreign Relations: Kwajalein Atoll is the Key U.S. Defense Interest in
Two Micronesian Nations. GAO-02-119. Washington, D.C.: January 22,
2002.
Compact of Free Association: Negotiations Should Address Aid
Effectiveness and Accountability and Migrants‘ Impact on U.S. Areas.
GAO-02-270T. Washington, D.C.: December 6, 2001.
Foreign Relations: Migration From Micronesian Nations Has Had
Significant Impact on Guam, Hawaii, and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands. GAO-02-40. Washington, D.C.: October 5, 2001.
Foreign Assistance: Lessons Learned From Donors‘ Experiences in the
Pacific Region. GAO-01-808. Washington, D.C.: August 17, 2001.
Foreign Assistance: U.S. Funds to Two Micronesian Nations Had Little
Impact on Economic Development. GAO/NSIAD-00-216. Washington, D.C.:
September 22, 2000.
Foreign Relations: Better Accountability Needed Over U.S. Assistance to
Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. GAO/RCED-00-67. Washington, D.C.:
May 31, 2000.
Northern Mariana Islands: Procedures for Processing Aliens and
Merchandise. GAO/GGD-00-97. Washington, D.C.: May 26, 2000.
Northern Mariana Islands: Garment and Tourist Industries Play a
Dominant Role in the Commonwealth‘s Economy. GAO/RCED/GGD-00-79.
Washington, D.C.: February 14, 2000.
U.S. Insular Areas: Application of the U.S. Constitution. GAO/OGC-98-5.
Washington, D.C.: November 7, 1997.
Managing National Parks:
Park Service: Visitor Center Project Costs, Size, and Functions Vary
Widely. GAO-01-781. Washington, D.C.: July 24, 2001.
Recreation Fees: Management Improvements Can Help the Demonstration
Program Enhance Visitor Services. GAO-02-10. Washington, D.C.: November
26, 2001.
Federal Lands: Agencies Need to Assess the Impact of Personal
Watercraft and Snowmobile Use. GAO/RCED-00-243. Washington, D.C.:
September 15, 2000.
Park Service: Need to Address Management Problems That Plague the
Concessions Program. GAO/RCED-00-70. Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2000.
National Park Service: The Condition of Lodging Facilities Varies among
Selected Parks. GAO/RCED-98-238 Washington, D.C.: August 6, 1998.
National Parks: Park Service Needs Better Information to Preserve and
Protect Resources. GAO/T-RCED-97-76. Washington, D.C.: February 27,
1997.
Managing Federal Land Transactions and Appraisals:
Land Acquisitions: Agencies Generally Used Similar Standards and
Appraisal Methodologies in CALFED and CVPIA Transactions. GAO-02-278R.
Washington, D.C.: January 23, 2002.
BLM and the Forest Service: Federal Taxpayers Could Benefit More From
Land Sales. GAO-01-882. Washington D.C.: September 10, 2001.
National Park Service: Federal Taxpayers Could Have Benefited More from
Potomac Yard Land Exchange. GAO-01-292. Washington, D.C.: March 15,
2001.
BLM and the Forest Service: Land Exchanges Need to Reflect Appropriate
Value and Serve the Public Interest. GAO/RCED-00-73. Washington, D.C.:
June 22, 2000.
Federal Land Management: Land Acquisition Issues Related to the Baca
Ranch Appraisal. GAO/RCED-00-76. Washington, D.C.: March 2, 2000.
Fish and Wildlife Service: Agency Needs to Inform Congress of Future
Costs Associated with Land Acquisitions. GAO/RCED-00-52. Washington,
D.C.: February 15, 2000.
Federal Land Management: Appraisal of Headwaters Forest Properties.
GAO/RCED-99-52. Washington, D.C.: December 24, 1998.
Federal Land Management: Appraisal of Crown Butte Mines‘ New World
Property. GAO/RCED-98-209. Washington, D.C.: May 29, 1998.
Deferred Maintenance Backlog:
National Park Service: Status of Efforts to Develop Better Deferred
Maintenance Data. GAO-02-568R. Washington, D.C.: April 12, 2002.
BIA and DOD Schools: Student Achievement and Other Characteristics
Often Differ from Public Schools. GAO-01-934. Washington, D.C.:
September 28, 2001.
Park Service: Agency Is Not Meeting Its Structural Fire Safety
Responsibilities. GAO/T-RCED-00-253. Washington, D.C.: July 19, 2000.
Park Service: Agency Is Not Meeting Its Structural Fire Safety
Responsibilities. GAO/RCED-00-154. Washington, D.C.: May 22, 2000.
National Park Service: Efforts to Identify and Manage the Maintenance
Backlog. GAO/RCED-98-143. Washington, D.C.: May 14,1998.
School Facilities: Reported Condition and Costs to Repair Schools
Funded by Bureau of Indian Affairs. GAO/HEHS-98-47. Washington, D.C.:
December 31, 1997.
Internal Controls over Financial Reporting:
Financial Reporting:
Bureau of Reclamation: Opportunities Exist to Improve Managerial Cost
Information and Cost Recovery. GAO-02-973. Washington, D.C.: September
20, 2002.
Indian Trust Funds: Individual Indian Accounts. GAO-02-970T.
Washington, D.C.: July 25, 2002.
Indian Trust Funds: Tribal Account Balances. GAO-02-420T. Washington,
D.C.: February 7, 2002.
Civil Fines and Penalties Debt: Review of OSM‘s Management and
Collection Processes. GAO-02-211. Washington, D.C.: December 31, 2001.
Bureau of Reclamation: Water Marketing Activities and Costs at the
Central Valley Project. GAO-01-553. Washington, D.C.: May 4, 2001. :
Bureau of Land Management: Improper Charges Made to Mining Law
Administration Program. GAO-01-356. Washington, D.C.: March 8, 2001. :
Indian Trust Funds: Improvements Made in Acquisition of New Asset and
Accounting System But Significant Risks Remain. AIMD-00-259.
Washington, D.C.: September 15, 2000.
Financial Management Review of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service‘s
Reported Allocation of Resources for its Refuge Program and New
Assistant Regional Manager Positions. AIMD-00-84R. Washington, D.C.:
February 15, 2000. :
Financial Management: Bureau of Reclamation Sources and Uses of Funds.
AIMD-99-200R. Washington, D.C.: May 26, 1999. :
Security of information:
Critical Infrastructure Protection: Significant Challenges Need to Be
Addressed. GAO-02-961T. Washington, D.C.: July 24, 2002.
Information Security: Additional Actions Needed to Implement Reform
Legislation. GAO-02-470T. Washington, D.C.: March 6, 2002.
Computer Security: Improvements Needed to Reduce Risk to Critical
Federal Operations and Assets. GAO-02-231T. Washington, D.C.: November
9, 2001.
Information Security: Weak Controls Place Interior‘s Financial and
Other Data at Risk. GAO-01-615. Washington, D.C.: July 3, 2001.
[End of section]
Performance and Accountability and High-Risk Series:
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: A Governmentwide
Perspective. GAO-03-95.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of
Agriculture. GAO-03-96.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Commerce.
GAO-03-97.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Defense.
GAO-03-98.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Education.
GAO-03-99.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Energy.
GAO-03-100.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Health and
Human Services. GAO-03-101.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Homeland
Security. GAO-03-102.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Housing
and Urban Development. GAO-03-103.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of the
Interior. GAO-03-104.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Justice.
GAO-03-105.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Labor.
GAO-03-106.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of State.
GAO-03-107.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of
Transportation. GAO-03-108.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of the
Treasury. GAO-03-109.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Veterans
Affairs. GAO-03-110.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: U.S. Agency for
International Development. GAO-03-111.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Environmental Protection
Agency. GAO-03-112.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Federal Emergency
Management Agency. GAO-03-113.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: National Aeronautics and
Space Administration. GAO-03-114.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Office of Personnel
Management. GAO-03-115.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Small Business
Administration. GAO-03-116.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Social Security
Administration. GAO-03-117.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: U.S. Postal Service.
GAO-03-118.
High-Risk Series: An Update. GAO-03-119.
High-Risk Series: Strategic Human Capital Management. GAO-03-120.
High-Risk Series: Protecting Information Systems Supporting the Federal
Government and the Nation‘s Critical Infrastructures.
GAO-03-121.
High-Risk Series: Federal Real Property. GAO-03-122.
FOOTNOTES
[1] U.S. General Accounting Office, Major Management Challenges and
Program Risks: Department of the Interior, GAO-01-249 (Washington,
D.C.: Jan. 2001).
[2] U..S. General Accounting Office, Severe Wildland Fires: Leadership
and Accountability Needed to Reduce Risks to Communities and Resources,
GAO-02-259 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 2002) and U.S. General
Accounting Office, Wildland Fire Management: Improved Planning Will
Help Agencies Better Identify Fire-Fighting Preparedness Needs, GAO-02-
158 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 29, 2002).
[3] GAO-02-259.
[4] GAO-02-259.
[5] GAO-02-259.
[6] GAO-02-158.
[7] U.S. General Accounting Office, South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration: An Overall Strategic Plan and a Decision-Making Process
Are Needed to Keep the Effort on Track, GAO/RCED-99-121 (Washington,
D.C.: Apr. 22, 1999).
[8] U.S. General Accounting Office, South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration: Substantial Progress Made in Developing a Strategic Plan,
but Actions Still Needed, GAO-01-361 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 27, 2001).
[9] U.S. General Accounting Office, Invasive Species: Obstacles Hinder
Federal Rapid Response to Growing Threat, GAO-01-724 (Washington, D.C.:
July 24, 2001).
[10] U.S. General Accounting Office, Invasive Species: Clearer Focus
and Greater Commitment Needed to Effectively Manage the Problem, GAO-
03-01 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 22, 2002).
[11] U.S. General Accounting Office, Indian Trust Funds: Improvements
Made to Strengthen Management of New Asset and Accounting System but
Significant Risks Remain, GAO/AIMD-00-259 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 15,
2000).
[12] Department of the Interior, Report to Congress on the Historical
Accounting of Individual Indian Money Accounts (Washington D.C.: July
2, 2002).
[13] U.S. General Accounting Office, Indian Trust Funds: Individual
Indian Accounts, GAO-02-970T (Washington, D.C.: July 25, 2002).
[14] U.S. General Accounting Office, Indian Issues: Improvements Needed
in Tribal Recognition Process, GAO-02-49 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 2,
2001).
[15] U.S. General Accounting Office, Indian Programs: Tribal Priority
Allocations Do Not Target the Neediest Tribes, GAO/RCED-98-181
(Washington, D.C.: July 17, 1998).
[16] U.S. General Accounting Office, Indian Self-Determination Act:
Shortfalls in Indian Contract Support Costs Need to Be Addressed, GAO/
RCED-99-150 (Washington, D.C.: June 30, 1999).
[17] U.S. General Accounting Office, Foreign Assistance: Effectiveness
and Accountability Problems Common in U.S. Programs to Assist Two
Micronesian Nations, GAO-02-70 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 22, 2002).
[18] U.S. General Accounting Office, Park Service: Need to Address
Management Problems That Plague the Concessions Program, GAO/RCED-00-70
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 31, 2000).
[19] U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Inspector General,
Land Exchanges and Acquisitions, Bureau of Land Management, Utah State
Office, Report No. 2001-I-413 (Washington, D.C.: July 2001).
[20] U.S. General Accounting Office, National Park Service: Federal
Taxpayers Could Have Benefited More From Potomac Yard Land Exchange,
GAO-01-292 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15, 2001).
[21] U.S. General Accounting Office, BLM and The Forest Service: Land
Exchanges Need to Reflect Appropriate Value and Serve the Public
Interest, GAO/RCED-00-73 (Washington, D.C.: June 22, 2000).
[22] U.S. General Accounting Office, Park Service: Agency Is Not
Meeting Its Structural Fire Safety Responsibilities, GAO/RCED-00-154
(Washington, D.C.: May 22, 2000).
[23] Department of the Interior, Annual Departmental Report on
Accountability, Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 27, 2002).
[24] GAO/RCED-00-154 and U.S. General Accounting Office, Park Service:
Agency Is Not Meeting Its Structural Fire Safety Responsibilities, GAO/
T-RCED-00-253 (Washington, D.C.: July 19, 2000).
[25] U.S. General Accounting Office, School Facilities: Reported
Condition and Costs to Repair Schools Funded by Bureau of Indian
Affairs, GAO/HEHS-98-47 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 31, 1997).
[26] U.S. General Accounting Office, BIA and DOD Schools: Student
Achievement and Other Characteristics Often Differ from Public
Schools‘, GAO-01-934 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 28, 2001).
[27] See Independent Auditors‘ Report on the U.S. Department of the
Interior Fiscal Year 2001 Annual Departmental Report on Accountability,
No. 2002-I-0018 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 27, 2002).
[28] Material weaknesses are reportable conditions in which the design
or operation of one or more of the internal control components does not
reduce to a relatively low level the risk that misstatements caused by
error or fraud in amounts that would be material in relation to the
financial statements being audited may occur and not be detected within
a timely period by employees in the normal course of performing their
assigned functions.
GAO‘s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the 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 the Internet. GAO‘s Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly
released products“ under the GAO Reports heading.
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. General Accounting 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: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
