Federal Land Management
Challenges to Implementing the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act Gao ID: GAO-10-259T November 17, 2009The U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service manage about 628 million acres of public land, mostly in 11 western states and Alaska. Under the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA) of 2000, revenue raised from selling BLM lands is available to the agencies, primarily to acquire nonfederal land within the boundaries of land they already own--known as inholdings. These inholdings can create significant land management problems. To acquire land, the agencies can nominate parcels under state-level interagency agreements or the Secretaries can use their discretion to initiate acquisitions. FLTFA expires in July 2010. This testimony discusses GAO's 2008 report: Federal Land Management: Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act Restrictions and Management Weaknesses Limit Future Sales and Acquisitions (GAO-08-196). Specifically, the testimony discusses (1) FLTFA revenue generated, (2) challenges to future sales, (3) FLTFA expenditures, (4) challenges to future acquisitions, and (5) agencies' implementation of GAO's recommendations. Among other things, GAO examined the act, agency guidance, and FLTFA sale and acquisition data, interviewed agency officials, and obtained some updated information.
(1) BLM raised most FLTFA revenue from land sales in Nevada. As of August 2009, BLM reported raising a total of $113.4 million from sale of about 29,400 acres. Since FLTFA was enacted in 2000 through August 2009, about 78 percent of the revenue raised, or about $88 million, has come from land transactions in Nevada. (2) BLM faces challenges to future sales under FLTFA. In particular, BLM state and field officials most frequently cited the limited availability of knowledgeable realty staff to conduct sales. We identified two additional issues hampering land sales activity under FLTFA. First, while BLM had identified land for sale in its land use plans, it had not made these sales a priority during the first 7 years of the FLTFA program. Furthermore, BLM had not set goals for sales or developed a sales implementation strategy. Second, some of the additional land BLM had identified for sale since the act would not generate revenue for acquisitions because the act only allows the deposit of revenue from the sale of lands identified for disposal on or before the date of the act. (3) Agencies had purchased few parcels with FLTFA revenue. In 2008, we reported that between August 2007--7 years after FLTFA was enacted--and January 2008, the four land management agencies had spent $13.3 million of the $95.7 million in revenue raised under FLTFA: $10.1 million using the Secretaries' discretion to acquire nine parcels of land and $3.2 million for administrative expenses to prepare land for FLTFA sales. More recently, as of November 2009, BLM reported spending a total of $43.8 million to acquire 28 parcels, including $24.6 million for 12 parcels through the state-level interagency process. (4) Agencies face challenges to completing additional acquisitions. BLM state and field officials GAO interviewed most commonly cited the time, cost, and complexity of the land acquisition process as a challenge to completing land acquisitions. Furthermore, the act's requirement to spend the majority of funds in the state in which revenue was generated has had the effect of making little revenue available for acquisitions outside of Nevada. The agencies also had not established procedures to track the implementation of the act's requirement that at least 80 percent of FLTFA revenue raised in each state be used to acquire inholdings in that state or to track the extent to which BLM is complying with agreed-upon fund allocations among the four participating agencies. (5) BLM has taken steps to implement GAO's recommendations. Specifically, BLM established FLTFA sale goals for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 and established a sales incentive program providing seed funds to state and field offices to identify and pre-screen properties for possible sale under FLTFA. As of November 2009, six states have agreed to participate in the program.
GAO-10-259T, Federal Land Management: Challenges to Implementing the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-259T
entitled 'Federal Land Management: Challenges to Implementing the
Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act' which was released on
November 18, 2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands,
Committee on Natural Resources, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 2 p.m. EST:
Tuesday, November 17, 2009:
Federal Land Management:
Challenges to Implementing the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation
Act:
Statement of Robin M. Nazzaro, Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
GAO-10-259T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-10-259T, testimony before the Subcommittee on
National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, Committee on Natural
Resources, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The U.S. Department of the Interior‘s Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service, and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture‘s Forest Service manage about 628 million
acres of public land, mostly in 11 western states and Alaska. Under the
Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA) of 2000, revenue
raised from selling BLM lands is available to the agencies, primarily
to acquire nonfederal land within the boundaries of land they already
own”known as inholdings. These inholdings can create significant land
management problems. To acquire land, the agencies can nominate parcels
under state-level interagency agreements or the Secretaries can use
their discretion to initiate acquisitions. FLTFA expires in July 2010.
This testimony discusses GAO‘s 2008 report: Federal Land Management:
Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act Restrictions and Management
Weaknesses Limit Future Sales and Acquisitions (GAO-08-196).
Specifically, the testimony discusses (1) FLTFA revenue generated, (2)
challenges to future sales, (3) FLTFA expenditures, (4) challenges to
future acquisitions, and (5) agencies‘ implementation of GAO‘s
recommendations. Among other things, GAO examined the act, agency
guidance, and FLTFA sale and acquisition data, interviewed agency
officials, and obtained some updated information.
What GAO Found:
* BLM raised most FLTFA revenue from land sales in Nevada. As of August
2009, BLM reported raising a total of $113.4 million from sale of about
29,400 acres. Since FLTFA was enacted in 2000 through August 2009,
about 78 percent of the revenue raised, or about $88 million, has come
from land transactions in Nevada.
* BLM faces challenges to future sales under FLTFA. In particular, BLM
state and field officials most frequently cited the limited
availability of knowledgeable realty staff to conduct sales. We
identified two additional issues hampering land sales activity under
FLTFA. First, while BLM had identified land for sale in its land use
plans, it had not made these sales a priority during the first 7 years
of the FLTFA program. Furthermore, BLM had not set goals for sales or
developed a sales implementation strategy. Second, some of the
additional land BLM had identified for sale since the act would not
generate revenue for acquisitions because the act only allows the
deposit of revenue from the sale of lands identified for disposal on or
before the date of the act.
* Agencies had purchased few parcels with FLTFA revenue. In 2008, we
reported that between August 2007”7 years after FLTFA was enacted”and
January 2008, the four land management agencies had spent $13.3 million
of the $95.7 million in revenue raised under FLTFA: $10.1 million using
the Secretaries‘ discretion to acquire nine parcels of land and $3.2
million for administrative expenses to prepare land for FLTFA sales.
More recently, as of November 2009, BLM reported spending a total of
$43.8 million to acquire 28 parcels, including $24.6 million for 12
parcels through the state-level interagency process.
* Agencies face challenges to completing additional acquisitions. BLM
state and field officials GAO interviewed most commonly cited the time,
cost, and complexity of the land acquisition process as a challenge to
completing land acquisitions. Furthermore, the act‘s requirement to
spend the majority of funds in the state in which revenue was generated
has had the effect of making little revenue available for acquisitions
outside of Nevada. The agencies also had not established procedures to
track the implementation of the act‘s requirement that at least 80
percent of FLTFA revenue raised in each state be used to acquire
inholdings in that state or to track the extent to which BLM is
complying with agreed-upon fund allocations among the four
participating agencies.
* BLM has taken steps to implement GAO‘s recommendations. Specifically,
BLM established FLTFA sale goals for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 and
established a sales incentive program providing seed funds to state and
field offices to identify and pre-screen properties for possible sale
under FLTFA. As of November 2009, six states have agreed to participate
in the program.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-259T] or key
components. For more information, contact Robin M. Nazzaro at (202) 512-
3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss our February 2008 report on
the implementation of the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act
(FLTFA) of 2000 as you consider the act's reauthorization.[Footnote 1]
As you know, Congress enacted FLTFA, in part, to enhance the efficiency
and effectiveness of federal land management by allowing four land
management agencies--the U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of
Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park
Service, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service--to
use revenue generated through BLM's sale or exchange of its lands to
primarily acquire inholdings in order to improve resource management.
[Footnote 2] (Inholdings are nonfederal lands within the boundaries of
federal lands and can create significant management problems in
maintaining boundaries, protecting resources and providing security,
among other things.) In 2005, the agencies estimated there were at
least 70 million acres of inholdings within the lands they manage.
My testimony today will address (1) the extent to which BLM generated
revenue for the FLTFA program, (2) challenges BLM faces in conducting
future sales, (3) the extent to which agencies spent funds under FLTFA,
(4) challenges the agencies face in conducting future acquisitions, and
(5) the current status of the agencies' implementation of our
recommendations.
To address these issues, we examined the act, agency guidance, and
FLTFA sale and acquisition data, interviewed agency officials, and
obtained some updated information, among other things. This testimony
is based on our report for which audit work was performed between
November 2006 and February 2008, as well as follow-up work conducted in
September 2008 and November 2009, in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and
perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide
a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
App. I of our 2008 report provides detailed information on our scope
and methodology.
Background:
The four major federal land management agencies administer
approximately 628 million acres, or about 28 percent of the land area
in the United States. These public lands are mostly in Alaska and the
11 western states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Alaska is
not currently participating in the FLTFA program because of its
priority to settle Alaska Native land claims.
BLM is authorized to sell or exchange land identified in its land use
plans; the other three land management agencies have limited or no
sales authority. Once BLM has sold land, FLTFA directs BLM to deposit
the revenue generated from these sales into a special U.S. Treasury
account created by FLTFA. However, the act limits the revenue deposited
into this account to that generated from sales or exchanges of public
lands identified for disposal in a land use plan in effect as of July
25, 2000--the date of FLTFA's enactment.[Footnote 3] Money in the new
account is available to BLM and the other three agencies to purchase
inholdings, and in some cases, land adjacent to federally designated
areas that contain exceptional resources.
The federal land management agencies have two methods for identifying
land to acquire under FLTFA. First, the agencies can nominate parcels
through a process laid out in state-level implementation agreements
that were developed under the direction of a national memorandum of
understanding (MOU). Second, the Secretaries can directly use a portion
of FLTFA revenue to acquire specific parcels of land at their own
discretion. The national MOU laid out the expectation that most
acquisitions would occur through the state-level process.
FLTFA places several restrictions on using funds from the new U.S.
Treasury account. Among other things, FLTFA requires that (1) no more
than 20 percent of the revenue can be used for BLM's administrative and
other activities necessary to carry out the land disposal program; (2)
of the amount not spent on administrative expenses, at least 80 percent
must be expended in the state in which the funds were generated; and
(3) at least 80 percent of FLTFA revenue required to be spent on land
acquisitions within a state must be used to acquire inholdings (as
opposed to adjacent land) within that state. In addition, the national
MOU sets the allocation of funds from the FLTFA account for each
agency--60 percent for BLM, 20 percent for the Forest Service, and 10
percent each for the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Park Service,
but the Secretaries may vary from these allocations by mutual
agreement.
BLM Has Raised Most FLTFA Revenue from Land Sales in Nevada:
At the time of our review, BLM had raised $95.7 million in revenue,
mostly from selling 16,659 acres. As of May 2007, about 92 percent of
the revenue raised, or $88 million, came from land sales in Nevada.
Revenue grew slowly during the first years of the program and peaked in
fiscal year 2006, when a total of $71.1 million was generated. BLM's
Nevada offices accounted for the lion's share of the sales because (1)
demand for land to develop had been high in rapidly expanding
population centers such as Las Vegas, (2) BLM had a high percentage of
land in proximity to these centers, and (3) BLM had experience selling
land under another federal land sales program authorized for southern
Nevada. During the period we reviewed, BLM offices covering three other
states--New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington--had raised over $1 million
each, and the remaining seven BLM state offices--Arizona, California,
Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming--had each raised less than
$1 million. Most BLM field offices had not generated revenue under
FLTFA. As of August 2009, BLM reported raising a total of $113.4
million in revenue for the FLTFA account from the sale of about 29,400
acres. According to these revised BLM data, Nevada still accounted for
the majority of FLTFA sales revenues--about $88 million, or 78 percent
of the total revenue.
BLM Faces Challenges to Future Sales Under FLTFA:
BLM faces several challenges to raising revenue through future FLTFA
sales, according to officials in the 10 BLM state offices and 18 BLM
field offices we interviewed for our 2008 report. Many of these
challenges are likely to continue if FLTFA is reauthorized. The
following lists, in order of most frequently cited, the challenges
officials identified and provides examples:
* The availability of knowledgeable realty staff to conduct the sales.
BLM staff said realty staff must address higher priority work before
land sales. For example, Colorado BLM staff said that processing rights-
of-way for energy pipelines takes a huge amount of realty staff time,
100 percent in some field offices, and poses one of the top challenges
to carrying out FLTFA sales in Colorado. In Idaho, staff also cited the
lack of realty staffing, which was down 40 percent from 10 years ago.
* Time, cost, and complexity of the sales process. Much preparation
must be completed before a property can be sold. For example, several
offices cited the cost and length of the process to ensure that a sale
complies with environmental laws and regulations. In addition,
obtaining clearances from experts on cultural and natural resources on
a proposed sale can be time-consuming.
* External factors. BLM officials cited such factors such as public
opposition to a sale, market conditions, or lack of political support
as challenges. For example, Colorado BLM officials said that they have
faced strong local opposition to sales, and the El Centro Field Office
staff in California cited the lack of demand for the land from buyers
as a challenge.
* Program and legal restrictions. The Arizona State Office staff and
the Elko, Nevada Field Office staff cited the sunset date of FLTFA,
less than 3 years away at the time of our review, as a challenge to the
disposal of land under FLTFA because the sunset date might not allow
enough time to complete many more sales. Other offices said the MOU
provision requiring a portion of the land sale proceeds to be used by
the three other agencies reduces BLM's incentive to conduct land sales
because BLM keeps only 60 percent of the revenue. Another challenge,
especially in Nevada, has been the enactment of land bills for Lincoln
and White Pine counties.[Footnote 4] In total, BLM staff estimated
that, once mandated land use plan amendments were completed, these two
acts would result in the removal of about 148,000 acres from FLTFA
eligibility.
* Land use planning. Some offices cited problems with the land use
plans. For example, the Idaho Falls District Office staff said that
specific land for sale is hard to identify in old land use plans.
Nevada's Elko Field Office staff said that some lands that could be
offered for sale were not available because they were not designated in
the land use plan at the time of FLTFA's enactment.
We identified two additional issues hampering land sales activity under
FLTFA. First, while BLM had identified land for sale in its land use
plans, it had not made the sale of this land a priority during the
first 7 years of the program. Furthermore, BLM had not set goals for
sales or developed a sales implementation strategy. Second, some of the
additional land BLM had identified for sale since FLTFA was enacted
would not generate revenue for acquisitions because the act only allows
the deposit of revenue from the sale of lands identified for disposal
on or before the date of the act.
Agencies Had Purchased Few Parcels with FLTFA Revenue:
At the time of our review, BLM had reported that the four land
management agencies had spent $13.3 million of the $95.7 million in the
FLTFA account. More specifically:
* The four agencies spent $10.1 million to acquire nine parcels
totaling 3,381 acres in seven states--Arizona, California, Idaho,
Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, and Wyoming.
* BLM spent $3.2 million for administrative expenses between 2000 and
2007 to conduct FLTFA-eligible sales, primarily in Nevada.
The agencies acquired these lands between August 2007 and January 2008--
more than 7 years after FLTFA was enacted. These acquisitions were
initiated using the Secretaries' discretion, and most had been
identified but not funded for purchase under another land acquisition
program. As of October 2007, no land had been purchased through the
state-level interagency nomination process that was established by the
national MOU and state agreements. Acquisitions had not yet occurred
under the state-level process because it took 6 years to complete the
interagency agreements needed to implement the program and because
relatively little revenue was available for acquisitions outside of
Nevada, owing to FLTFA requirements.
As of November 2009, BLM reported the following:
* The Secretaries had approved $66.8 million for the acquisition of 39
parcels since FLTFA's enactment in 2000.
* Of the $66.8 million, agencies spent a total of about $43.8 million
to acquire 28 parcels totaling 16,738 acres and the remainder of the
approved acquisitions was being processed.
* $48.6 million of the $66.8 million in acquisitions for 22 parcels had
been nominated through the state-level interagency process rather than
through Secretarial discretion. Of the $48.6 million nominated through
the state-level process, the agencies have acquired 12 parcels with
$24.6 million in FLTFA funding.
* $5.1 million has been spent on FLTFA administrative expenses to
conduct land sales overall.
Agencies Face Challenges in Completing Additional Acquisitions:
BLM state and field officials we interviewed for our 2008 report cited
several challenges to completing additional acquisitions under FLTFA.
Many of these challenges are likely to continue if FLTFA is
reauthorized. The following lists, in order of most frequently cited,
the challenges officials identified, and provides examples of these
challenges.
* Time, cost, and complexity of the land acquisition process. To
complete an acquisition under FLTFA, four agencies must work together
to identify, nominate, and rank proposed acquisitions, which must then
be approved by the two Secretaries. Officials at two field offices
estimated the acquisition process took about 2-1/2 to 3 years. BLM
officials from the Wyoming State Office and the Las Cruces, New Mexico,
Field Office said that, with this length of time, BLM must either
identify a very committed seller willing to wait to complete an
acquisition or obtain the assistance of a third party in completing an
acquisition. In terms of cost, some offices noted that they did not
have the funding required to complete all of the work involved to
prepare land acquisitions. In terms of complexity, a Utah State Office
official said BLM has more control over the process for submitting land
acquisitions under the Land and Water Conservation Fund than FLTFA
because FLTFA requires four agencies in two departments to coordinate
their efforts.
* Identifying a willing seller. Identification of a willing seller can
be problematic because, among other things, the seller might have
higher expectations of the property's value. For example, an Ely,
Nevada, Field Office official explained that, because of the then-high
real estate values, sellers believed they could obtain higher prices
from developers than from the federal government. Furthermore, an Idaho
State Office official said that it is difficult to find a seller
willing to accept the appraised price and wait for the government to
complete the purchase.
Even when land acquisition nominations are approved, they may not
result in a purchase. For example, in 2004, under FLTFA, two approved
acquisitions for inholdings within a national forest in Nevada were
terminated. In one case, property values rose sharply during the
nomination process and, in an effort to retain some of his land, the
seller decided to reduce the acres for sale but maintain the price
expectation. Furthermore, the seller decided not to grant the Forest
Service access through the parcel he was retaining, thus eliminating
the opportunity to secure access to an inaccessible area of the
national forest. In the other case, during the course of the
secretarial approval process, the landowner sold portions of the land
included in the original transaction to another party, reducing the
land available for the Forest Service to purchase. According to Forest
Service officials, in both cases the purchase of the remaining parcels
would not fulfill the original purpose of the acquisitions owing to
reductions in resource benefits. Therefore, the Forest Service
terminated both projects.
* Availability of knowledgeable staff to conduct acquisitions. BLM
officials reported that they lacked knowledgeable realty staff to
conduct land acquisitions, as well as other BLM or department staff to
conduct appraisals, surveys, and resource studies. Staff were occupied
working on higher priority activities, particularly in the energy area.
* Lack of funding to purchase land. BLM officials in some states said
they lack adequate funds to acquire land under FLTFA. For example,
according to a field office official in Burns, Oregon, just one
acquisition in a nearby conservation area would have nearly drained
that state's FLTFA account.
* Restrictions imposed by laws and regulations. BLM officials said that
legal and other restrictions pose a challenge to acquiring land. For
example, officials in the BLM Arizona State Office and the Grand
Junction, Colorado, Field Office said that some federally designated
areas in their jurisdictions were established after the date of FLTFA's
enactment, making the land within them ineligible for acquisition under
the act. In terms of regulations, BLM Carson City, Nevada, Field Office
officials told us that the requirements they must follow regarding the
processing of title, survey, and hazardous materials issues posed a
challenge to conducting acquisitions.
* Public opposition to land acquisitions. According to BLM officials
from the Elko and Ely Field Offices in Nevada, the public did not
support the federal government's acquisition of federal land in their
areas, arguing that the government already owned a high percentage of
land and that such acquisitions resulted in the removal of land from
the local tax base.
We also found that the act's restriction on the use of revenues outside
of the state in which they were raised continues to limit acquisitions.
Specifically, little revenue was, and still is available for
acquisitions outside of Nevada. Furthermore, progress in acquiring
priority land had been hampered by the agencies' weak performance in
identifying inholdings and setting priorities for acquiring them, as
required by the act. Finally, the agencies had yet to develop effective
procedures to fully comply with the act and national MOU. Specifically,
the agencies--and primarily BLM, as the manager of the FLTFA account--
had not established a procedure to track the act's requirement that at
least 80 percent of funds allocated toward the purchase of land within
each state must be used to purchase inholdings and that up to 20
percent may be used to purchase adjacent land. And with respect to the
national MOU, BLM had not established a procedure to track agreed-upon
fund allocations--60 percent for BLM, 20 percent for the Forest
Service, and 10 percent each for the Fish and Wildlife Service and the
Park Service.
Report Recommendations and Agency Actions:
In 2008, we concluded that 7 years after FLTFA had been enacted, BLM
had not taken full advantage of the opportunity the act offered. We
recognized that a number of challenges prevented BLM from completing
many sales in most states, which limited the number of possible
acquisitions. Many of the challenges that BLM cited are likely faced in
many public land sales because FLTFA did not change the land sales
process. However, we believed that BLM's failure to set goals for FLTFA
sales and develop a sales implementation strategy limited the agency's
ability to raise revenue for acquisitions. Without goals and a strategy
to achieve them, BLM field offices did not have direction for FLTFA
sales. Moreover, the lack of goals made it difficult to determine the
extent of BLM's progress in disposing of unneeded lands to raise funds
for acquisitions. As with sales, progress in acquiring priority land
had been hampered by weak agency performance in developing an effective
mechanism to identify potential land acquisitions and set priorities
for inholdings and adjacent land with exceptional resources, which
FLTFA requires. Moreover, because the agencies had not tracked the
amounts spent on inholdings and agency allocations, they could not
ensure compliance with the act or full implementation of the MOU.
Our report contained two matters for congressional consideration and
five recommendations for executive action. We said that if Congress
decided to reauthorize FLTFA in 2010, it might wish to consider
revising the following two provisions to better achieve the goals of
the act:
* FLTFA's limitation of eligible land sales to those lands identified
in land use plans in effect as of July 25, 2000. This provision
excludes more recently identified land available for disposal, thereby
reducing opportunities for raising additional revenue for land
acquisition.
* The requirement that agencies spend the majority of funds raised from
eligible sales for acquisitions in the same state. This provision makes
it difficult for agencies to acquire more desirable land in states that
have generated little revenue.
Our report also contained five recommendations for executive action to
improve FLTFA implementation. BLM has taken several actions to
implement our recommendations. Table 1 shows the recommendations from
our 2008 report and the actions the agencies reported as of November
2009.
Table 1: GAO Recommendations to Improve FLTFA Implementation and Agency
Actions, as of November 2009:
GAO recommendation: BLM develop goals for land sales;
Agency actions:
* August 2008. BLM established FLTFA land sale goals for fiscal years
2009 and 2010 of $25 million each, according to agency officials. To
set these goals, a BLM headquarters official contacted each of the BLM
state offices to determine the amount of eligible land sales that could
be conducted in the final 2 years of FLTFA;
* Fall 2009. BLM revised its land sales goal for fiscal year 2010 to
$20 million.
GAO recommendation: BLM develop a strategy for implementing its land
sales goals;
Agency actions:
* August 2008. BLM developed a sales incentive program that provides
seed money for planning and carrying out FLTFA-eligible land sales.
Specifically, the program makes available up to $300,000 to eligible
state and field offices for activities necessary to identify and pre-
screen properties for possible sale under FLTFA. At a minimum, offices
are to prepare a list of specific tracts for sale, with legal
descriptions and a copy of the respective land use plan that supports
the potential sale. As of November 2009, six states--Arizona,
California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, and New Mexico--had agreed to
participate in the program, according to BLM officials.
GAO recommendation: Secretaries of Agriculture and of the Interior
improve the procedures to identify and set priorities for acquiring
inholdings;
Agency actions:
* May 2008. USDA stated that its Land Acquisition Prioritization
System, generally used for land acquisitions under the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, also satisfies the land acquisition prioritization
requirements under FLTFA. USDA further stated that Forest Service would
continue working with BLM to identify and set priorities for acquiring
inholdings and that the Forest Service would coordinate with BLM to
formalize the use of a single process to set priorities for land
acquisitions;
* November 2009. The Forest Service FLTFA program lead said that Forest
Service has coordinated with BLM to formalize the use of a single
process to set priorities for land acquisitions. She said that the
agencies meet regularly to discuss FLTFA nominations;
* April 2008. Interior agreed to continue to improve the procedures to
identify and set priorities for acquiring inholdings;
* November 2009. BLM officials said that the current Land and Water
Conservation Fund system works well for FLTFA acquisitions and no
changes have been made to this system. BLM has, however, intensified
its efforts to educate state-level FLTFA implementation teams on the
FLTFA land acquisition process. For example, the FLTFA lead said he has
attended numerous state-level interagency team meetings to educate team
members about the availability and use of FLTFA funds.
GAO recommendation: BLM establish a procedure to track the percentage
of revenue spent on inholdings and on adjacent land;
Agency actions:
* November 2009. BLM officials reported that BLM gathers and maintains
data on each transaction and tracks whether the parcel is an inholding
or adjacent land. Officials also reported that BLM is directing field
staff to note in BLM's automated land status tracking system (LR2000)
whether a parcel is an inholding or adjacent land.
GAO recommendation: Secretaries of Agriculture and of the Interior
establish a procedure to track the fund allocations for land
acquisitions by agency as provided in the MOU;
Agency actions:
* May 2008. USDA stated that BLM is responsible under FLTFA for
tracking the sales, proceeds, and disbursement of funds and that USDA
will continue to assist BLM in tracking these funds;
* November 2009. The Forest Service FLTFA program lead reiterated
USDA's May 2008 statement that BLM is responsible for tracking the use
of FLTFA funding. She said that the Forest Service is merely a
recipient of FLTFA funding. She added that the national MOU allocations
are only targets and that they do not necessarily represent a limit on
how much funding an agency can receive;
* November 2009. The BLM FLTFA program lead reported that BLM is
gathering data on each FLTFA transaction by agency and will prepare a
final report in compliance with the MOU at FLTFA's sunset if not
reauthorized. He added that the allocations established in the MOU are
goals only, and that, while the agencies will try to adhere to them,
they ultimately will not be held to those allocations. As of November
2009, BLM reports that of the $66.8 million approved by the
Secretaries, 60 percent is for BLM, 30 percent is for the Forest
Service, 5.5 percent is for the Park Service, and 4.5 percent is for
the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Source: GAO-08-196, USDA and Interior letters documenting planned
agency actions in response to GAO recommendations, and information
provided by BLM and Forest Service officials.
[End of table]
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
respond to any questions that you or Members of the Subcommittee may
have.
Contacts and Acknowledgements:
Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public
Affairs may be found on the last page of this testimony. For further
information about this testimony, please contact Robin M. Nazzaro at
(202) 512-3841. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony
were Andrea Wamstad Brown, Assistant Director; Rich Johnson; Mark
Keenan; Paul Kinney; Emily Larson; John Scott; Rebecca Shea and Carol
Herrnstadt Shulman.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, Federal Land Management: Federal Land Transaction Facilitation
Act Restrictions and Management Weaknesses Limit Future Sales and
Acquisitions, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-196]
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 5, 2008).
[2] Pub. L. 106-248 (2000) (codified as 43 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq).
[3] S. 1787 and H.R. 3339, pending in the current Congress, would amend
this limitation.
[4] Pub. L. 106-298: Lincoln County Land Act Of 2000, as amended by
Pub. L. 108-424 (2004) and Pub. L. 109-432, Title III, White Pine
County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2006.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
