Department of the Interior
Major Management Challenges Gao ID: GAO-11-424T March 1, 2011The Department of the Interior (Interior) is responsible for managing much of the nation's vast natural resources. Its agencies implement an array of programs intended to protect these resources for future generations while also allowing certain uses of them, such as recreation and oil and gas development. In some cases, Interior is authorized to collect royalties and fees for these uses. Over the years, GAO has reported on management challenges at Interior, which are largely characterized by the struggle to balance the demand for greater use of its resources with the need to conserve and protect them. Furthermore, given the government's long-term fiscal challenges, Interior faces difficult choices in balancing its responsibilities. This testimony highlights some of the major management challenges facing Interior today. It is based on prior GAO reports.
As GAO's previous work has shown, Interior faces major management challenges in the following seven areas: (1) Strengthening resource protection: Interior has not yet developed a cohesive strategy to address wildland fire issues as GAO has recommended in the past. In addition, Interior faces challenges in adapting to climate change and protecting and securing federal lands from illegal activities. (2) Strengthening the accountability of Indian and insular area programs: Having a land base is important to Indian tribal governments. Concerns remain about the effect of a February 2009 Supreme Court decision on the process for taking land in trust for tribes and their members. In addition, seven insular areas--four U.S. territories and three sovereign island nations--continue to face financial, program management, and economic challenges. (3) Improving federal land acquisition and exchanges: As the steward of more than 500 million acres of federal land, land sales, acquisitions, and exchanges are important land management functions for the department. The Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act of 2000 has had limited success and Interior needs to better manage land exchanges and protect federal funds. (4) Reducing Interior's deferred maintenance backlog: While Interior has made progress improving information on maintenance needs, the dollar estimate of the deferred maintenance backlog for fiscal year 2010 was between $13.5 billion and $19.9 billion. (5) Management of federal oil and gas resources: GAO designated Interior's management of federal oil and gas resources as a governmentwide high-risk area in February 2011. Interior faces ongoing challenges in four broad areas: (1) oil and gas revenue collection, (2) management of human capital, (3) reorganization of the bureaus dealing with oil and gas issues, and (4) balancing timely and efficient oil and gas development with environmental stewardship responsibilities. (6) Generating revenue and enhancing financial assurances and bonds: Additional revenues could be generated by amending the General Mining Act of 1872 so that the federal government could collect federal royalties on minerals extracted from U.S. mineral rights. In addition, financial assurances and bonds from hardrock mining and oil and gas operations could be enhanced to help ensure the reclamation of federal land disturbed by these operations. (7) Improving information security: Interior has been challenged to effectively protect its computer systems and networks. The department has not consistently implemented effective controls to prevent, limit, and detect unauthorized access to its systems or manage the configuration of network devices to prevent unauthorized access and ensure system integrity. GAO has made a number of recommendations intended to improve Interior's programs by enhancing the information it uses to manage its programs and strengthening internal controls. Interior has agreed with most of the recommendations and taken some steps to implement them. However, Interior has been slow to implement other recommendations, such as developing a cohesive wildland fire strategy and improving oversight of oil and gas activities.
GAO-11-424T, Department of the Interior: Major Management Challenges
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-424T
entitled 'Department Of The Interior: Major Management Challenges'
which was released on March 1, 2011.
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.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 9:30 a.m. EST:
Tuesday, March 1, 2011:
Department Of The Interior:
Major Management Challenges:
Statement of Anu K. Mittal, Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
Frank Rusco, Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
GAO-11-424T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-11-424T, a testimony statement before the
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee
on Appropriations, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Department of the Interior (Interior) is responsible for managing
much of the nation‘s vast natural resources. Its agencies implement an
array of programs intended to protect these resources for future
generations while also allowing certain uses of them, such as
recreation and oil and gas development. In some cases, Interior is
authorized to collect royalties and fees for these uses. Over the
years, GAO has reported on management challenges at Interior, which
are largely characterized by the struggle to balance the demand for
greater use of its resources with the need to conserve and protect
them. Furthermore, given the government‘s long-term fiscal challenges,
Interior faces difficult choices in balancing its responsibilities.
This testimony highlights some of the major management challenges
facing Interior today. It is based on prior GAO reports.
What GAO Found:
As GAO‘s previous work has shown, Interior faces major management
challenges in the following seven areas:
* Strengthening resource protection. Interior has not yet developed a
cohesive strategy to address wildland fire issues as GAO has
recommended in the past. In addition, Interior faces challenges in
adapting to climate change and protecting and securing federal lands
from illegal activities.
* Strengthening the accountability of Indian and insular area
programs. Having a land base is important to Indian tribal
governments. Concerns remain about the effect of a February 2009
Supreme Court decision on the process for taking land in trust for
tribes and their members. In addition, seven insular areas”four U.S.
territories and three sovereign island nations”continue to face
financial, program management, and economic challenges.
* Improving federal land acquisition and exchanges. As the steward of
more than 500 million acres of federal land, land sales, acquisitions,
and exchanges are important land management functions for the
department. The Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act of 2000 has
had limited success and Interior needs to better manage land exchanges
and protect federal funds.
* Reducing Interior‘s deferred maintenance backlog. While Interior has
made progress improving information on maintenance needs, the dollar
estimate of the deferred maintenance backlog for fiscal year 2010 was
between $13.5 billion and $19.9 billion.
* Management of federal oil and gas resources. GAO designated Interior‘
s management of federal oil and gas resources as a governmentwide high
risk area in February 2011. Interior faces ongoing challenges in four
broad areas: (1) oil and gas revenue collection, (2) management of
human capital, (3) reorganization of the bureaus dealing with oil and
gas issues, and (4) balancing timely and efficient oil and gas
development with environmental stewardship responsibilities.
* Generating revenue and enhancing financial assurances and bonds.
Additional revenues could be generated by amending the General Mining
Act of 1872 so that the federal government could collect federal
royalties on minerals extracted from U.S. mineral rights. In addition,
financial assurances and bonds from hardrock mining and oil and gas
operations could be enhanced to help ensure the reclamation of federal
land disturbed by these operations.
* Improving information security. Interior has been challenged to
effectively protect its computer systems and networks. The department
has not consistently implemented effective controls to prevent, limit,
and detect unauthorized access to its systems or manage the
configuration of network devices to prevent unauthorized access and
ensure system integrity.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO has made a number of recommendations intended to improve
Interior‘s programs by enhancing the information it uses to manage its
programs and strengthening internal controls. Interior has agreed with
most of the recommendations and taken some steps to implement them.
However, Interior has been slow to implement other recommendations,
such as developing a cohesive wildland fire strategy and improving
oversight of oil and gas activities.
View GAO-11-424T or key components. For more information, contact Anu
K.Mittal or Frank Rusco at (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov and
ruscof@gao.gov, respectively.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
We are pleased to be here today to participate in your hearing on the
major management challenges at the Department of the Interior
(Interior). As the stewards for more than 500 million acres of federal
land--about one-fifth of the total U.S. landmass--and more than 1.7
billion acres of the Outer Continental Shelf, Interior is responsible
for a wide array of programs to ensure that our nation's natural
resources are adequately protected and that access to and use of those
resources is appropriately managed. Interior's mission is to provide
for the environmentally sound production of oil, gas, minerals, and
other resources found on the nation's public lands; honor the nation's
obligations to American Indians and Alaska Natives; protect habitat to
sustain fish and wildlife; help manage water resources in western
states; and provide scientific and technical information to allow for
sound decision-making about resources. In recent years, Congress has
appropriated more than $11 billion annually to meet these
responsibilities. With these resources, Interior employs about 70,000
people in eight major agencies and bureaus at more than 2,400
locations around the country to carry out its mission. Interior's
management of this vast federal estate is largely characterized by the
struggle to balance the demand for greater use of its resources with
the need to conserve and protect them for the benefit of future
generations. Furthermore, given the federal deficit and the
government's long-term fiscal challenges, Interior faces difficult
choices in balancing its many responsibilities and protecting and
improving the condition of the nation's natural resources and the
department's infrastructure.
Our testimony today is an update of our March 2009 testimony before
this subcommittee on Interior's major management challenges.[Footnote
1] Specifically, we will discuss management challenges in seven key
areas: (1) resource protection; (2) Indian and insular area programs,
which includes programs for four U.S. territories and three sovereign
island nations, among others; (3) land acquisition and exchanges; (4)
deferred maintenance; (5) federal oil and gas resources; (6)
generating other revenue collections and enhancing financial
assurances and bonds; and (7) improving information security. Our
testimony is based on findings from a number of reports we have issued
over the past few years on some of Interior's natural resource
management programs. See the list of related GAO products at the end
of this statement. We conducted our work in accordance with all
sections of GAO's Quality Assurance Framework that were relevant to
the objectives of each engagement. The framework requires that we plan
and perform each engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate
evidence to meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations
in our work. We believe that the information and data obtained, and
the analyses conducted, provided a reasonable basis for the findings
and conclusions in each report.
Strengthening Resource Protection:
In fulfilling its resource protection functions, Interior has faced a
number of management challenges in the past and will continue to face
challenges in the future. In particular, based on our recent work, we
would like to highlight three challenges in this area (1) protecting
lives, property and resources from wildland fires; (2) adapting to
climate change; and (3) protecting and securing federal lands from
illegal activities.
Wildland Fire Management Challenges Persist:
As we reported in our March 2009 testimony, Interior, working with the
Department of Agriculture's Forest Service, has taken steps to help
manage perhaps the agency's most daunting challenge--protecting lives,
private property, and federal resources from the threats of wildland
fire. However, our nation's wildland fire problem worsened
dramatically over the past decade. The average annual acreage burned
by wildland fires in the 2000s is more than double that burned in the
1990s, and appropriations for the federal government's wildland
management activities have tripled, averaging approximately $3 billion
annually in recent years, up from about $1 billion in fiscal year
1999. While Agriculture's Forest Service receives about 70 percent of
the appropriations, four Interior agencies--the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), and the National Park Service (NPS)--are key
partners in the federal response to wildland fire. Therefore, most of
our work and recommendations on wildland fire management address
agencies in both departments.
In our March 2009 testimony we noted four primary areas we believed
the agencies needed to address to better respond to the nation's
wildland fire problems. While the agencies have continued to make
improvements in these areas, as discussed below, work remains to be
done in each. As a result, we continue to believe that wildland fire
management is a major management challenge for Interior.
* The agencies have not yet developed a cohesive strategy that
identifies options and associated funding to reduce potentially
hazardous vegetation and address wildland fire problems. For more than
a decade, we have recommended that the agencies develop a cohesive
wildland fire strategy that identifies potential long-term options for
reducing fuels and responding to fires that occur, and the funding
requirements associated with the various options.[Footnote 2] In 2009
Congress echoed our call for a cohesive strategy in the Federal Land
Assistance, Management, and Enhancement Act of 2009,[Footnote 3] which
requires the agencies to produce a cohesive strategy consistent with
our recommendations. In response, Interior and the Forest Service have
prepared Phase I of the cohesive strategy, which, according to a
senior agency official, provides a general description of the
agencies' approach to the wildland fire problem and establishes a
framework for collecting and analyzing the information needed to
assess the wildland fire problem and make decisions about how to
address it. The document has not yet been made final or formally
submitted to Congress as required by the act, though the strategy was
required to be submitted within 1 year of the act's 2009 passage. Once
the document has been made final, the agencies expect to begin
drafting Phase II of the strategy, which, according to this official,
will involve the actual collection and analysis of data and assessment
of different options.
* The agencies have not yet established clear goals and a strategy to
help contain wildland fire costs. Although the agencies have continued
to take steps intended to help contain wildland fire costs, they have
not yet clearly defined their cost-containment goals or developed a
strategy for achieving those goals.[Footnote 4] Without such
fundamental steps, we believe the agencies will have difficulty
determining whether they are taking the most important steps first, as
well as the extent to which the steps they are taking will help
contain costs. While several agency documents discuss the agencies'
cost containment goals and objectives at a high level, we believe
these documents lack the clarity and specificity needed by officials
in the field to help manage and contain wildland fire costs. We
therefore continue to believe that the agencies will be challenged in
managing their cost-containment efforts and improving their ability to
contain wildland fire costs.
* The agencies have continued to improve their processes for
allocating fuel reduction funds and selecting fuel reduction projects,
but further action is needed. Fuel reduction projects--using
prescribed fire, mechanical thinning, herbicides, grazing, or
combinations of these methods--are intended to remove or modify
wildland fuel to reduce the potential for severe wildland fires,
lessen the damage caused by fires, limit the spread of flammable
invasive species, and restore and maintain healthy ecosystems. In 2007
we identified several shortcomings in the agencies' processes for
allocating fuel reduction funds and selecting fuel reduction projects.
[Footnote 5] While the agencies have continued to take steps to
improve these processes, we believe they will continue to face
challenges in more effectively using their limited fuel reduction
dollars without the improved processes we have previously recommended.
* The agencies have not yet taken needed steps to improve the use of
an interagency budgeting and planning tool. Since 2008 we have been
concerned about Interior's and the Forest Service's development of a
planning tool known as fire program analysis (FPA).[Footnote 6] FPA is
designed to allow the agencies to analyze potential combinations of
firefighting assets, and potential strategies for reducing fuels and
fighting fires, to identify the most cost-effective among them. By
identifying cost-effective combinations of assets and strategies
within the agencies, FPA was also designed to help the agencies
develop their wildland fire budget requests and allocate resources
across the country. However, FPA's development continues to be
characterized by delays and revisions, and the agencies are several
years behind their initially projected timeline for using it to help
develop their budget requests. Although the agencies continue to take
steps to improve FPA as we recommended, it is not clear how effective
these steps will be in correcting the problems we have identified and
therefore we believe that the agencies will continue to face
challenges in this area.
Adapting to the Effects of Climate Change on Public Lands:
As we stated in our March 2009 testimony, federal land and water
resources are vulnerable to a wide range of effects from climate
change, some of which are already occurring. According to experts,
these effects include (1) physical effects, such as droughts, floods,
glacial melting, and sea level rise; (2) biological effects, such as
increases in insect and disease infestations, shifts in species
distribution, and changes in the timing of natural events; and (3)
economic and social effects, such as adverse impacts on tourism,
infrastructure, fishing, and other resource uses. Furthermore, in
August 2007, we reported that climate change impacts compete for the
attention of decisionmakers with more immediate priorities.[Footnote
7] We found at that time that BLM, FWS, and NPS did not make climate
change a priority, and that their strategic plans did not specifically
address climate change. Our recent work related to flooding and
erosion in Alaska provides an example of how the effects of a warmer
climate have been clearly evident in Alaska. In June 2009, we reported
that while the flooding and erosion threats to Alaska Native villages
have not been completely assessed, since 2003, federal, state, and
village officials have identified 31 villages that face imminent
threats.[Footnote 8] We suggested that Congress consider the need for
a federal lead to ensure that federal resources are being prioritized
and allocated efficiently and effectively.
In October 2009, we found that several federal agencies, including
Interior, had begun to consider measures that would strengthen the
resilience of natural resources in the face of climate change.
[Footnote 9] In September 2009, Interior issued an order designed to
address the impacts of climate change on the nation's water, land, and
other natural and cultural resources.[Footnote 10] Among other things,
the order requires each bureau and office to consider and analyze
potential climate change impacts when undertaking long-range planning
exercises, setting priorities for scientific research and
investigations, developing multi-year management plans, and making
major decisions regarding potential use of resources. While we believe
that this is a step in the right direction, in a fiscally constrained
environment the department will continue to face challenges in setting
priorities and making resource allocation decisions to address the
impacts of climate change.
Protecting and Securing Federal Lands:
Our recent work has also identified a challenge for Interior in the
area of protecting and securing federal lands from the effects of
illegal activities. BLM, FWS, and NPS are responsible for managing
federal lands, enforcing federal laws governing the lands and their
resources, and ensuring visitor safety. Illegal activities occurring
on these lands have raised concerns that the agencies are becoming
less able to protect our natural and cultural resources and ensure
public safety. In December 2010, we reported that although land
management agencies consider varied information on the occurrence and
effects of illegal activities on federal lands, the agencies do not
systematically assess the risks posed by such activities when
determining their needs for resources and where to distribute them.
[Footnote 11] Without systematic approaches to assess the risks they
face, the agencies may have limited assurance that they are allocating
scarce resources in a manner that effectively addresses the risk of
illegal activities on our nation's federal lands. In order to help the
agencies better manage law enforcement resources, we recommended that
the agencies adopt a risk management approach to systematically assess
and address threats and vulnerabilities presented by illegal
activities on federal lands. Interior concurred with our
recommendation, and we continue to track its implementation.
In addition, federal lands on the U.S. borders with Canada and Mexico
are vulnerable to illegal cross-border activity. In November 2010, we
reported that illegal cross-border activity remains a significant
threat to federal lands.[Footnote 12] Furthermore, there has been
little interagency coordination to share intelligence assessments of
border security threats to federal lands and develop budget requests,
strategies, and joint operations to address these threats. In October
2010, we also found that coordination challenges between land
management agencies and Border Patrol caused land management and
environmental laws to be implemented in such a way that, at times,
delayed or restricted Border Patrol's access to and monitoring of
federal lands along the Southwest border.[Footnote 13] To more easily
balance public safety and access to federal borderlands and to help
ensure that Interior, the Department of Homeland Security, and the
Department of Agriculture coordinate efforts to provide an effective
interagency law enforcement response on these lands, we made
recommendations aimed at improving interagency coordination. Interior
agreed with our recommendations, and we continue to track their
implementation.
Strengthening the Accountability of Indian and Insular Area Programs:
We have reported on management weaknesses in Indian and insular area
programs for a number of years. BIA continues to face challenges in
processing land in trust applications, and Interior's Office of
Insular Affairs (OIA) continues to face challenges in providing
assistance to seven of the insular areas--four U.S. territories and
three sovereign island nations--with long-standing financial, program
management, and economic challenges.
Challenges Continue for BIA's Processing of Land in Trust Applications:
BIA is the primary federal agency charged with implementing federal
Indian policy and administering the federal trust responsibility for
about 2 million American Indians and Alaska Natives. BIA provides
basic services to 565 federally recognized Indian tribes throughout
the United States, including natural resources management on about 54
million acres of Indian trust lands. Trust status means that the
federal government holds title to the land in trust for tribes or
individual Indians; land taken in trust is no longer subject to state
and local property taxes and zoning ordinances. In 1980 Interior
established a regulatory process intended to provide a uniform
approach for taking land in trust.[Footnote 14] While some state and
local governments support the federal government's taking additional
land in trust for tribes or individual Indians, others strongly oppose
it because of concerns about the impacts on their tax base and
jurisdictional control.
We reported in 2006 that while BIA generally followed its regulations
for processing land in trust applications from tribes and individual
Indians, it had no deadlines for making decisions on them.[Footnote
15] While BIA has generally responded to our recommendations to
improve the processing of land in trust applications, this issue
continues to be a challenge, in part, because of a February 24, 2009,
Supreme Court decision.[Footnote 16] The court held that the Indian
Reorganization Act only authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to
take land into trust for a tribe or its members if that tribe was
under federal jurisdiction when the law was enacted in 1934.[Footnote
17] The court did not define what constituted being under federal
jurisdiction but did find that a tribe, which was not federally
recognized until 1983, was not under federal jurisdiction in 1934. It
is not clear how many tribes or pending land in trust applications
will be affected by this decision, but the decision raises a question
about the Secretary's authority to take land in trust for the 50
tribes that have been newly recognized since 1960 and their members.
[Footnote 18] The Secretary's decisions to take land in trust for two
of these tribes--the Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Potawatomi
Indians of Michigan and the Cowlitz Indian tribe of Washington--have
been challenged in court.[Footnote 19]
Improve Effectiveness and Accountability for Insular Area Programs:
The Secretary of the Interior has varying responsibilities to the
insular areas of American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), and the U.S. Virgin Islands, all of
which are U.S. territories, as well as to 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. OIA, which carries out the
department's responsibilities for insular affairs, provides financial
and technical assistance to the insular areas in developing more
efficient and effective governments and it helps manage relations
between the federal government and the insular area governments by
promoting appropriate federal policies. For example, OIA is
responsible for helping to implement federal policies related to CNMI
immigration and minimum wage increases in American Samoa and the CNMI.
The insular area governments have had long-standing financial and
program management deficiencies, in addition to facing economic
challenges. Our recent work related to the insular areas has focused
on concerns relative to OIA's oversight of grants to insular areas,
application of U.S. immigration law to the CNMI, and minimum wage
increases in American Samoa and the CNMI.
In March 2010, we reported that opportunities exist for OIA to improve
its grant oversight and reduce the potential for
mismanagement.[Footnote 20] OIA provided approximately $400 million
annually to financial assistance to insular area governments--roughly
$70 million of which is awarded annually as grants to insular areas
for capital improvement projects, operations and maintenance
improvement projects, technical assistance, and other purposes, to
increase the self-sufficiency of the insular areas. We estimated that
39 percent of the 1,771 grant projects in OIA's grant management
database at the time of our review demonstrated at least one internal
control weakness that may increase the projects' susceptibility to
mismanagement. While we noted that OIA had taken a number of steps to
improve project implementation and management since 2005, we
recommended that Interior improve OIA's ability to effectively manage
grants by taking several actions, including clarifying its authorities
to ensure insular areas use funds more efficiently, creating a
workforce plan to reflect the staffing levels necessary to adopt a
proactive monitoring and oversight approach, and developing criteria
for project redirection request approvals. Interior agreed with our
recommendations and has since developed the workforce plan.
Over the last few years we have also issued a number of reports on the
application of U.S. immigration law to the CNMI.[Footnote 21] U.S. law
established federal control of CNMI immigration beginning in 2009,
with provisions affecting employers' access to foreign workers,
investors, and visitors during a transition period ending in 2014.
[Footnote 22] Interior is specifically assigned several
responsibilities in implementing the law. During the transition
period, the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with
the U.S. Secretaries of the Interior, Labor, and State and the U.S.
Attorney General, has the responsibility to establish, administer, and
enforce a transition program to regulate immigration in the CNMI, and
decisions regarding delays or extensions of the transition period also
are in consultation with Interior and other agencies. Furthermore, the
legislation requires Interior to provide technical assistance to the
CNMI to promote economic growth; to assist employers in recruiting,
training, and hiring U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents in
the CNMI; and to develop CNMI job skills as needed.[Footnote 23] To
date, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has not issued final
regulations for foreign workers, nor has it made a permanent decision
regarding access for visitors from Russia and China. It issued
regulations for foreign investors in December 2010.[Footnote 24] In
August 2008, we recommended that because of the importance of key
implementation decisions by different federal agencies, the Secretary
of Homeland Security should lead other relevant federal agencies,
including the Departments of the Interior, Labor, and State, in
identifying the interagency process that will be used to collaborate
with one another--and consult with the CNMI government, as required--
to jointly implement the legislation.[Footnote 25] Interior agreed
with our findings, and we continue to track the law's implementation.
In 2007 the United States enacted legislation that incrementally
applies the federal minimum wage to American Samoa and the CNMI.
[Footnote 26] The legislation changed decades of federal law that had
allowed both areas to apply minimum wage rates significantly lower
than the minimum wage for the U.S. 50 states. Under current law, the
minimum wage for American Samoa's lowest paid workers will reach the
federal minimum wage of $7.25 in 2018; and in the CNMI this is set to
occur in 2016. Public and private sector officials and workers in both
areas have expressed concern about the impact of the minimum wage
increases on the local economies. Although the law does not assign
Interior specific responsibilities, OIA is generally responsible for
promoting and managing government relations in support of appropriate
federal policies. In April 2010, we found that the first minimum wage
increase had raised the wages of about three-quarters of private
sector workers in American Samoa and about a third of private sector
workers in the CNMI.[Footnote 27] Employment in American Samoa and the
CNMI has declined for multiple reasons. Studies funded by Interior
have projected major additional contraction of both economies.
[Footnote 28] These economic realities pose a challenge to OIA as it
tries to improve the standard of living for island residents and
promote the economic development and self-sufficiency of the insular
areas.
Improving Federal Land Acquisition and Exchanges:
As the steward of more than 500 million acres, federal land sales,
acquisitions, and exchanges are important land management tools for
Interior. Interior has faced a number of management challenges in this
area in the past and our recent work has identified management
weaknesses in Interior's oversight of land exchanges. As a result, we
believe that managing land acquisition and exchanges continues to be a
major management challenge for Interior.
In our March 2009 testimony, we stated that the Federal Land
Transaction Facilitation Act of 2000 (FLTFA) which, in part, was
intended to facilitate land consolidation, has had limited success. We
reported that the agencies face several challenges to completing
future land acquisitions under the act. Most notably, the act requires
that the agencies use most of the funds to purchase land in the state
in which the funds were raised; this restriction has had the effect of
making little revenue available outside of Nevada. In November 2009,
we reported that since FLTFA was enacted in 2000 through August 2009,
BLM had raised $113.4 million in revenue under the act and that about
78 percent of this revenue came from land transactions in Nevada.
[Footnote 29] We also found that the four land management agencies
(BLM, FWS, NPS, and the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service)
had purchased few parcels with FLTFA revenue. As of November 2009, BLM
reported spending a total of $43.8 million to acquire 28 parcels,
including $24.6 million for 12 parcels using funds allocated through
the interagency process.[Footnote 30] While we suggested in our
November 2009 report that if Congress reauthorized the act that it
should consider including additional lands for sale and greater
flexibility for acquisitions; the July 2010 reauthorization that
extended the act for 1 year did not amend the FLTFA provisions
governing lands available for sale and acquisition.[Footnote 31] The
reauthorization occurred a few days after FLTFA expired. According to
BLM officials, at the time FLTFA expired, the unobligated program
funds were transferred to the Land and Water Conservation Fund and as
of November 2010 had not been restored to the program.[Footnote 32]
Officials said that BLM has little incentive to conduct further land
sales under FLTFA because of the cost and amount of work involved in
preparing the sales and, given the limited 1-year extension, the
uncertainty that BLM and other agencies will be able to use any
revenues generated to acquire lands.
Our recent work has also identified challenges for Interior in
managing land exchanges. In June 2009, we reported on management
weaknesses in BLM's oversight of land exchanges under the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA).[Footnote 33] Among other
things, we reported that BLM had issued new guidance on managing
ledgers and continued to use ledgers to track land value imbalances
over time in multiphase exchanges.[Footnote 34] However, we found that
BLM was not adhering to its own guidance for maintaining the ledgers
and therefore could not be confident in how much is owed to the
federal government. Specifically, BLM could not be assured that the
$2.6 million land value imbalance due to the United States, recorded
in its ledgers as of June 30, 2008, was accurate. We recommended that
Interior take several steps to better manage the land exchange program
and protect federal funds. Although BLM has issued additional and
clarifying guidance,[Footnote 35] it has not yet developed a national
land tenure strategy, tracked land exchange costs, or required or
tracked specific training for staff working on land exchanges.
In addition, in December 2010, we issued a legal opinion concluding
that BLM carried out certain land transactions in the state of
Washington that were not authorized by FLPMA's land exchange
provisions and were inconsistent with FLPMA's land sale
provisions.[Footnote 36] Specifically, we concluded that the
multiphase assembled land exchange consisted of a series of
transactions where an agent of BLM sold public lands and used the
proceeds to purchase nonfederal lands for BLM. The proceeds of these
sales were required to be deposited into appropriate funds in the U.S.
Treasury without deduction for any charge or claim. Instead, after
selling public lands, BLM used some of the proceeds to purchase lands.
This violated the Miscellaneous Receipts Statute. Furthermore, by
using these proceeds, BLM improperly augmented its land acquisition
appropriations.
Reducing Interior's Deferred Maintenance Backlog:
As we testified in March 2009, Interior continues to face 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; however, repairs and
maintenance on these facilities have not been adequately funded. The
deterioration of these facilities can impair 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 November 2010, the department estimated that the deferred
maintenance backlog for fiscal year 2010 was between $13.5 billion and
$19.9 billion (see table 1).[Footnote 37]
Table 1: Department of the Interior's Estimate of Deferred Maintenance
for Fiscal Year 2010:
Type of structure: Roads, bridges, and trails;
Estimated range of deferred maintenance:
Low estimate: $6.53 billion;
High estimate: $9.55 billion.
Type of structure: Irrigation, dams, and other water structures;
Estimated range of deferred maintenance:
Low estimate: $1.95 billion;
High estimate: $2.93 billion.
Type of structure: Buildings (e.g., administration, education,
housing, and historic buildings);
Estimated range of deferred maintenance:
Low estimate: $2.96 billion;
High estimate: $4.34 billion.
Type of structure: Other structures (e.g., recreation sites and fish
hatcheries);
Estimated range of deferred maintenance:
Low estimate: $2.09 billion;
High estimate: $3.06 billion.
Type of structure: Total;
Estimated range of deferred maintenance:
Low estimate: $13.52 billion;
High estimate: $19.87 billion.
Source: Department of the Interior data.
Note: Total may not add due to rounding.
[End of table]
Interior has made progress addressing our prior recommendations to
improve information on the maintenance needs of NPS facilities and BIA
schools and irrigation projects. The high end of the deferred
maintenance has been relatively constant since 2007, when the estimate
was $19.8 billion. Furthermore, the deferred maintenance estimates for
the irrigation, dams, and other water structures category have
decreased for the past 2 consecutive years, 2009 and 2010. Interior
was able to address some needed repairs and improve the condition of
some facilities through funds it received under the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009.[Footnote 38]
Management of Federal Oil and Gas Resources:
Interior's management of oil and gas resources has been a focus of a
large body of our work and an area where we have found numerous
weaknesses and challenges that need to be addressed. In response to
our recommendations, Interior has taken steps to address material
weaknesses and modify its practices for managing oil and gas
resources, but as of December 2010, many recommendations remain
unimplemented. We designated Interior's management of federal oil and
gas resources as a governmentwide high risk issue in February 2011.
[Footnote 39] Interior faces ongoing challenges executing its
responsibilities to manage oil and gas production from federal lands
and waters in four broad areas: (1) oil and gas revenue collection,
(2) management of human capital, (3) the recently undertaken
reorganization of the bureaus dealing with oil and gas issues, and (4)
balancing timely and efficient oil and gas development with
environmental stewardship responsibilities.
Interior's oversight of oil and gas operations is critically
important. The explosion onboard the Deepwater Horizon and oil spill
in the Gulf of Mexico in April 2010 emphasized the importance of
Interior's management of permitting and inspection processes to ensure
operational and environmental safety. The National Commission on the
BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling reported in
January 2011 that this disaster was the product of several individual
missteps and oversights by BP, Halliburton, and Transocean, which
government regulators lacked the authority, the necessary resources,
or the technical expertise to prevent.
Concerns Over Revenue Collection:
Federal oil and gas resources provide an important source of energy
for the United States, create jobs in the oil and gas industry, and
generate billions of dollars annually in revenues that are shared
between federal, state, and tribal governments. Revenue generated from
federal oil and gas production is one of the largest nontax sources of
federal government funds, accounting for about $9 billion in fiscal
year 2009. In September 2008, we reported that in the deep water of
the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, Interior collected lower levels of revenues
for oil and gas production than all but 11 of 104 oil and gas resource
owners whose revenue collection systems were evaluated in a
comprehensive industry study--these resource owners included many
other countries as well as some states.[Footnote 40] We recommended
that Interior undertake a comprehensive reassessment of its revenue
collection policies and processes. Interior has commissioned such a
study in response to our report, which it expects to complete in 2011.
The results of the study may reveal the potential for greater revenues
to the federal government. We also reported in March 2010 that
Interior was not taking the steps needed to ensure that oil and gas
produced from federal lands was accurately measured.[Footnote 41] For
example, we found that neither BLM nor Interior's Minerals Management
Service (MMS) had consistently met their statutory requirements or
agency goals for oil and gas production verification inspections.
Without such verification, Interior cannot provide reasonable
assurance that the public is collecting its share of revenue from oil
and gas development on federal lands and waters. As a result of this
work, we identified 19 recommendations for specific improvements to
oversight of production verification activities, with which Interior
generally agreed.
Additionally, we reported in October 2010 that Interior's data likely
underestimated the amount of natural gas produced on federal leases
that is released directly to the atmosphere (vented) or is burned
(flared).[Footnote 42] This vented and flared gas contributes to
greenhouse gases and represents lost royalties. We recommended that
Interior improve its data and address limitations in its regulations
and guidance to reduce this lost gas. Interior generally agreed and is
taking initial steps to implement these recommendations. Furthermore,
we reported in July 2009 on numerous problems with Interior's efforts
to collect data on oil and gas produced on federal lands, including
missing data, errors in company-reported data on oil and gas
production, and sales data that did not reflect prevailing market
prices for oil and gas.[Footnote 43] As a result of Interior's lack of
consistent and reliable data on the production and sale of oil and gas
from federal lands, Interior could not provide reasonable assurance
that it was assessing and collecting the appropriate amount of
royalties on this production. We made a number of recommendations to
Interior to improve controls on the accuracy and reliability of
royalty data. Interior generally agreed with our recommendations and
is working to implement many of them, but these efforts are not
complete, and it is uncertain at this time if the efforts will fully
address our concerns.
Human Capital Challenges Remain Pressing:
We have reported that BLM and MMS have encountered persistent problems
in hiring, training, and retaining sufficient staff to meet its
oversight and management responsibilities for oil and gas operations
on federal lands and waters. For example, in March 2010, we found that
BLM and MMS experienced high turnover rates in key oil and gas
inspection and engineering positions responsible for production
verification activities.[Footnote 44] As a result, Interior faces
challenges meeting its responsibilities to oversee oil and gas
development on federal leases, potentially placing both the
environment and royalties at risk. We made a number of recommendations
to address these issues. While Interior's reorganization of MMS
includes plans to hire additional staff with expertise in oil and gas
inspections and engineering, these plans have not been fully
implemented and it remains unclear whether Interior will be fully
successful in hiring, training, and retaining these staff. Moreover,
the human capital issues we identified with BLM's management of
onshore oil and gas continue, and these issues have not yet been
addressed in Interior's reorganization plans.
Reorganization of Oil and Gas Functions Poses New Challenges:
Historically, BLM managed onshore federal oil and gas activities while
MMS managed offshore activities and collected royalties for all
leases. In May 2010, the Secretary of the Interior announced plans to
reorganize MMS--its bureau responsible for overseeing offshore oil and
gas activities and collecting royalties--into three separate bureaus.
The Secretary stated that dividing MMS's responsibilities among three
separate bureaus will help ensure that each of the three newly
established bureaus have a distinct and independent mission. Interior
recently began implementing this restructuring effort; transferring
offshore oversight responsibilities to the newly created Bureau of
Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) and
revenue collection to a new Office of Natural Resources Revenue.
Interior plans to continue restructuring BOEMRE to establish two
separate bureaus--the Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management, which
will focus on leasing and permitting, and the Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement, which will focus on inspection and
enforcement functions. While this reorganization may eventually lead
to more effective operations, we have reported that organizational
transformations are not simple endeavors and require the concentrated
efforts of both leaders and employees to realize intended synergies
and accomplish new organizational goals.[Footnote 45] One key practice
that we have identified for effective organizational transformation is
to balance continued delivery of services with transformational
activities. We are concerned about Interior's capacity to find the
proper balance--particularly in today's fiscally constrained
environment--given its history of management problems and challenges
in the human capital area. Specifically, we are concerned about
Interior's ability to undertake this reorganization while providing
reasonable assurance that billions of dollars of revenues owed to the
public are being properly assessed and collected and that oversight of
oil and gas exploration and production on federal lands and waters
maintains an appropriate balance between efficiency and timeliness on
one hand, and protection of the environment and operational safety on
the other.
Challenges of Balancing Oil and Gas Development with Environmental
Stewardship:
We have reported that Interior has experienced several challenges with
meeting its obligations to make federal oil and gas resources
available for leasing and development while simultaneously meeting its
responsibilities for managing public lands for other uses, including
wildlife habitat, recreation, and wilderness, among other uses. In
July 2010, in our examination of federal oil and gas lease sale
decisions in the Mountain West,[Footnote 46] we found that the extent
to which BLM tracked and made available to the public information
related to protests filed during the leasing process varied by state
and was generally limited in scope. We also found that stakeholders--
including environmental and hunting interests, and state and local
governments protesting BLM lease offerings--wanted additional time to
participate in the leasing process and more information from BLM about
its leasing decisions. Moreover, we found that BLM had been unable to
manage an increased workload associated with public protests and had
missed deadlines for issuing leases. In May 2010, the Secretary of the
Interior announced several agencywide leasing reforms that are to take
place at BLM, some of which may address these concerns, such as
providing additional public review and comment opportunity during the
leasing process. In March 2010, we found that Interior faced
challenges in ensuring consistent implementation of environmental
requirements, both within and across BOEMRE's regional offices,
leaving it vulnerable with regard to litigation and allegations of
scientific misconduct.[Footnote 47] We recommended that Interior
develop comprehensive environmental guidance materials for BOEMRE
staff. Interior concurred with this recommendation and is currently
developing such guidance. Finally, in September 2009, we reported that
BLM's use of categorical exclusions under Section 390 of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 was frequently out of compliance with the law and
BLM's internal guidance.[Footnote 48] As a result, we recommended that
BLM take steps to improve the implementation of Section 390
categorical exclusions through clarification of its guidance,
standardizing decision documents, and increasing oversight.
Generating Other Revenue Collections and Enhancing Financial
Assurances and Bonds:
For many years we have identified better management of revenue
collection efforts as a major management challenge. As we stated in
our March 2009 testimony, additional revenues could be generated by
amending the General Mining Act of 1872 so that the federal government
could collect federal royalties on minerals extracted from U.S.
mineral rights. In addition, financial assurances and bonds from
hardrock mining and oil and gas operations could be enhanced to help
ensure the reclamation of federal land disturbed by these operations.
Our recent work has found that while BLM requires, among other things,
that oil and gas operators reclaim the land they disturb and post a
bond to help ensure they do so, not all operators perform the required
reclamation, and the minimum bond amounts required have not been
increased in almost 50 years.
The General Mining Act of 1872 helped open the West by allowing
individuals to obtain exclusive rights to mine billions of dollars
worth of hardrock minerals from federal lands without having to pay a
federal royalty. In July 2008, we reported that the 12 western states,
including Alaska, assess multiple types of royalties on mining
operations.[Footnote 49] States may use similar names for the
royalties they assess, but these can vary widely in their forms and
rates. Unlike the federal government, these states charge royalties
that allow them to share in the proceeds from hardrock minerals
extracted from state-owned lands, as well as levy taxes that function
like royalties, on private, state, and federal lands.
Under BLM regulations, hardrock mining operators who extract gold,
silver, copper, and other mineral deposits from land belonging to the
United States are required to provide financial assurances, before
they begin exploration or mining, to guarantee that the costs to
reclaim land disturbed by their operations are paid. When operators
with insufficient financial assurances fail to reclaim BLM land
disturbed by hardrock mining operations, BLM is left with public land
that poses risks to the environment and public health and safety, and
requires millions of federal dollars to reclaim. In March 2008, we
found that the financial assurances required by BLM were not adequate
to fully cover estimated reclamation costs.[Footnote 50] According to
BLM, mine operators had provided financial assurances valued at
approximately $982 million to guarantee reclamation costs for 1,463
hardrock operations on BLM land. BLM also estimated that 52 mining
operations had financial assurances that amounted to about $28 million
less than needed to fully cover estimated reclamation costs. We found,
however, that because of a BLM miscalculation, the financial
assurances for these 52 operations were in fact about $61 million less
than needed to fully cover estimated reclamation costs. In addition,
we have also reported on the importance of financial assurances in the
reclamation of mountaintop mining operations.[Footnote 51]
Similarly for oil and gas development, we reported in January 2010
that while BLM requires oil and gas operators to reclaim the land they
disturb and post a bond to help ensure they do so, not all operators
perform reclamation.[Footnote 52] If the bond is not sufficient to
cover well plugging and surface reclamation and there are no
responsible or liable parties, the well is considered "orphaned," and
BLM uses federal dollars to fund reclamation. For fiscal years 1988
through 2009, BLM spent about $3.8 million to reclaim 295 orphaned
wells, and BLM has identified another 144 wells yet to be reclaimed.
According to our analysis of BLM data, as of December 2008, oil and
gas operators had provided 3,879 bonds, valued at $162 million, to
ensure compliance with lease terms and conditions for 88,357 wells.
The minimum bond amount for individual leases was set in 1960, and
minimum amounts for statewide or nationwide bonds was established in
1951; none of these bond amounts has been updated or adjusted for
inflation. We also found that 12 western states generally required
higher bond amounts than the minimum amounts established by BLM
regulations for individual and statewide oil and gas leases.
Improving Information Security:
With an information technology budget of nearly $1 billion in fiscal
year 2010, Interior relies on computerized information systems to
carry out its financial and mission-related operations. Effective
information security controls are required to ensure that financial
and sensitive information is adequately protected from inadvertent or
deliberate misuse, fraudulent use, and improper disclosure,
modification, or destruction. Ineffective controls can also impair the
accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of information used by
management. The need for effective information security is further
underscored by the evolving and growing cyber threats to federal
systems and the dramatic increase in the number of security incidents
reported by federal agencies.
Interior has been challenged to effectively protect its computer
systems and networks. Our recent work,[Footnote 53] as well as our
analysis of agency and Office of Inspector General reports, show that
the department has not consistently implemented effective controls to
prevent, limit, and detect unauthorized access to its systems or
manage the configuration of network devices to prevent unauthorized
access and ensure system integrity. For example, we have reported on
the need for federal agencies, including Interior, to improve
implementation of information security controls such as those for
configuring desktop computers and wireless communication devices.
[Footnote 54] We recommended that Interior, among other things,
complete implementation of the agency's baseline security
configuration for desktop computers using Window XP or Vista operating
systems, and ensure its components document deviations to the baseline
configuration and deploy a National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST)-validated tool to monitor compliance with the
configuration. The department agreed with our recommendations and
indicated that it has initiated actions to implement them.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes our prepared statement. We would be
pleased to answer any questions that you or other Members of the
Subcommittee may have at this time.
GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
For further information about this testimony, please contact Anu K.
Mittal or Frank Rusco at (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov and
ruscof@gao.gov, respectively. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this statement. Individuals making key contributions to this
testimony include Jeffery D. Malcolm, Assistant Director, and Janice
Ceperich. Also contributing to this testimony were Ashley Alley,
Elizabeth Beardsley, Andrea Wamstad Brown, Larry Crosland, Jonathan
Dent, Heather E. Dowey, Glenn Fischer, Emil Friberg, Steve Gaty, David
Gootnick, Alyssa Hundrup, Richard P. Johnson, Marissa Jones, Carol
Kolarik, Jon Ludwigson, Robert Marek, Jeanette Soares, Kiki
Theodoropolous, Barbara Timmerman, Charles Vrabel, Gregory C.
Wilshusen, Jayne Wilson, and Arvin Wu.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
High-Risk Series:
High-Risk Series: An Update. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-278]. Washington, D.C.: February
2011.
Interior Management Challenges:
Department of the Interior: Major Management Challenges. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-425T]. Washington, D.C.: March 3,
2009.
Resource Protection:
Wildland Fires:
Wildland Fire Management: Federal Agencies Have Taken Important Steps
Forward, but Additional, Strategic Action Is Needed to Capitalize on
Those Steps. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-877].
Washington, D.C.: September 9, 2009.
Wildland Fire Management: Interagency Budget Tool Needs Further
Development to Fully Meet Key Objectives. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-68]. Washington, D.C.: November 24,
2008.
Wildland Fire Management: Federal Agencies Lack Key Long-and Short-
Term Management Strategies for Using Program Funds Effectively.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-433T]. Washington,
D.C.: February 12, 2008.
Wildland Fire Management: Better Information and a Systematic Process
Could Improve Agencies' Approach to Allocating Fuel Reduction Funds
and Selecting Projects. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1168]. Washington, D.C.: September
28, 2007.
Wildland Fire Management: Lack of Clear Goals or a Strategy Hinders
Federal Agencies' Efforts to Contain the Costs of Fighting Fires.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-655]. Washington, D.C.:
June 1, 2007.
Wildland Fire Rehabilitation and Restoration: Forest Service and BLM
Could Benefit From Improved Information on Status of Needed Work.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-670]. Washington, D.C.:
June 30, 2006.
Wildland Fire Suppression: Lack of Clear Guidance Raises Concerns
about Cost Sharing between Federal and Nonfederal Entities.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-570]. Washington, D.C.:
May 30, 2006.
Wildland Fire Management: Update on Federal Agency Efforts to Develop
a Cohesive Wildland Fire Strategy. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-671R]. Washington, D.C.: May 1,
2006.
Other Resource Protection Products:
Federal Lands: Adopting a Formal, Risk-Based Approach Could Help Land
Management Agencies Better Manage Their Law Enforcement Resources.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-144]. Washington, D.C.:
December 17, 2010.
Border Security: Additional Actions Needed to Better Ensure a
Coordinated Federal Response to Illegal Activity on Federal Lands.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-177]. Washington, D.C.:
November 18, 2010.
Energy-Water Nexus: A Better and Coordinated Understanding of Water
Resources Could Help Mitigate the Impacts of Potential Oil Shale
Development. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-35].
Washington, D.C.: October 29, 2010.
Southwest Border: More Timely Border Patrol Access and Training Could
Improve Security Operations and Natural Resource Protection on Federal
Lands. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-38]. Washington,
D.C.: October 19, 2010.
Helium Program: Key Developments Since the Early 1990s and Future
Considerations. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-700T].
Washington, D.C.: May 13, 2010.
Surface Coal Mining: Financial Assurances for, and Long-Term Oversight
of, Mines with Valley Fills in Four Appalachian States. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-206]. Washington, D.C.: January 14,
2010.
Surface Coal Mining: Characteristics of Mining in Mountainous Areas of
Kentucky and West Virginia. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-21]. Washington, D.C.: December 9,
2009.
Energy-Water Nexus: Improvements to Federal Water Use Data Would
Increase Understanding of Trends in Power Plant Water Use. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-23]. Washington, D.C.: October 16,
2009.
Climate Change Adaptation: Strategic Federal Planning Could Help
Government Officials Make More Informed Decisions. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-113]. Washington, D.C.: October 7,
2009.
Air Pollution: Air Quality, Visibility, and the Potential Impacts of
Coal-Fired Power Plants on Great Basin National Park, Nevada.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-788R]. Washington,
D.C.: July 27, 2009.
Federal Lands: Enhanced Planning Could Assist Agencies in Managing
Increased Use of Off-Highway Vehicles. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-509]. Washington, D.C.: June 30,
2009.
Alaska Native Villages: Limited Progress Has Been Made on Relocating
Villages Threatened by Flooding and Erosion. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-551]. Washington, D.C.: June 3,
2009.
Endangered Species Act: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Has
Incomplete Information about Effects on Listed Species from Section 7
Consultations. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-550].
Washington, D.C.: May 21, 2009.
Federal Land Management: Additional Documentation of Agency
Experiences with Good Neighbor Authority Could Enhance Its Future Use.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-277]. Washington, D.C.:
February 25, 2009.
Endangered Species Act: Many GAO Recommendations Have Been
Implemented, but Some Issues Remain Unresolved. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-225R]. Washington, D.C.: December
19, 2008.
Federal Land Management: Use of Stewardship Contracting Is Increasing,
but Agencies Could Benefit from Better Data and Contracting
Strategies. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-23].
Washington, D.C.: November 13, 2008.
Bureau of Land Management: Effective Long-Term Options Needed to
Manage Unadoptable Wild Horses. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-77]. Washington, D.C.: October 9,
2008.
Wildlife Refuges: Changes in Funding, Staffing, and Other Factors
Create Concerns about Future Sustainability. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-797]. Washington, D.C.: September
22, 2008.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Endangered Species Act Decision
Making. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-688T].
Washington, D.C.: May 21, 2008.
Yellowstone Bison: Interagency Plan and Agencies' Management Need
Improvement to Better Address Bison-Cattle Brucellosis Controversy.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-291]. Washington, D.C.:
March 7, 2008.
Natural Resource Management: Opportunities Exist to Enhance Federal
Participation in Collaborative Efforts to Reduce Conflicts and Improve
Natural Resource Conditions. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-262]. Washington, D.C.: February
12, 2008.
Climate Change: Agencies Should Develop Guidance for Addressing the
Effects on Federal Land and Water Resources. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-863]. Washington, D.C.: August 7,
2007.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Opportunities Remain to Improve
Oversight and Management of Oil and Gas Activities on National
Wildlife Refuges. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-
829R]. Washington, DC: June 29, 2007.
National Parks Air Tour Management Act: More Flexibility and Better
Enforcement Needed. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-263]. Washington, D.C.: January 27,
2006.
Indian and Insular Area Programs:
Indian Issues:
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: After Almost
20 Years, Key Federal Agencies Still Have Not Fully Complied with the
Act. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-768]. Washington,
D.C.: July 28, 2010.
Alaska Native Villages: Limited Progress Has Been Made on Relocating
Villages Threatened by Flooding and Erosion. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-551]. Washington, D.C.: June 3,
2009.
Indian Issues: BLM's Program for Issuing Individual Indian Allotments
on Public Lands Is No Longer Viable. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-23R]. Washington, D.C.: October 20,
2006.
Indian Issues: BIA's Efforts to Impose Time Frames and Collect Better
Data Should Improve the Processing of Land in Trust Applications.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-781]. Washington, D.C.:
July 28, 2006.
Indian Irrigation: Numerous Issues Need to Be Addressed to Improve
Project Management and Financial Sustainability. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-314]. Washington, D.C.: February
24, 2006.
Insular Areas:
American Samoa: Performing a Risk Assessment Would Better Inform U.S.
Agencies of the Risks Related to Acceptance of Certificates of
Identity. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-638].
Washington, D.C.: June 11, 2010.
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands: DHS Should Conclude
Negotiations and Finalize Regulations to Implement Federal Immigration
Law. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-553]. Washington,
D.C.: May 7, 2010.
American Samoa and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands:
Wages, Employment, Employer Actions, Earnings, and Worker Views Since
Minimum Wage Increases Began. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-333]. Washington, D.C.: April 8,
2010.
U.S. Insular Areas: Opportunities Exist to Improve Interior's Grant
Oversight and Reduce the Potential for Mismanagement. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-347]. Washington, D.C.: March 16,
2010.
CNMI Immigration and Border Control Databases. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-345R]. Washington, D.C.: February
16, 2010.
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands: Coordinated Federal
Decisions and Additional Data Are Needed to Manage Potential Economic
Impact of Applying U.S. Immigration Law. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-426T]. Washington, D.C.: May 19,
2009.
High-Level Leadership Needed to Help Guam Address Challenges Caused by
DOD-Related Growth. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-500R]. Washington, D.C.: April 9,
2009.
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands: Managing Potential
Economic Impact of Applying U.S. Immigration Law Requires Coordinated
Federal Decisions and Additional Data. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-791]. Washington, D.C.: August 4,
2008.
Compact of Free Association: Palau's Use of and Accountability for
U.S. Assistance and Prospects for Economic Self-Sufficiency.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-732]. Washington, D.C.:
June 10, 2008.
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands: Pending Legislation
Would Apply U.S. Immigration Law to the CNMI with a Transition Period.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-466]. Washington, D.C.:
March 28, 2008.
Compacts of Free Association: Trust Funds for Micronesia and the
Marshall Islands May Not Provide Sustainable Income. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-513]. Washington, D.C.: June 15,
2007.
Compacts of Free Association: Micronesia and the Marshall Islands Face
Challenges in Planning for Sustainability, Measuring Progress, and
Ensuring Accountability. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-163]. Washington, D.C.: December
15, 2006.
U.S. Insular Areas: Economic, Fiscal, and Financial Accountability
Challenges. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-119].
Washington, D.C.: December 12, 2006.
Federal Land Acquisition and Exchanges:
Bureau of Land Management and General Services Administration--
Selected Land Transactions. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/B-318274]. Washington, D.C.: December 23,
2010.
Federal Land Management: Challenges to Implementing the Federal Land
Transaction Facilitation Act. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-259T]. Washington, D.C.: November
17, 2009.
Federal Land Management: BLM and the Forest Service Have Improved
Oversight of the Land Exchange Process, but Additional Actions Are
Needed. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-611].
Washington, D.C.: June 12, 2009.
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.: February 5, 2008.
Interior's Land Appraisal Services: Actions Needed to Improve
Compliance with Appraisal Standards, Increase Efficiency, and Broaden
Oversight. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-1050].
Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2006.
Deferred Maintenance Backlog:
We have not issued any new reports on the Department of the Interior's
deferred maintenance management challenge since our last testimony on
the department's management challenges in March 2009.
Oil and Gas Management:
Federal Oil and Gas Leases: Opportunities Exist to Capture Vented and
Flared Natural Gas, Which Would Increase Royalty Payments and Reduce
Greenhouse Gases. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-34].
Washington, D.C.: October 29, 2010.
Onshore Oil and Gas: BLM's Management of Public Protests to Its Lease
Sales Needs Improvement. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-670]. Washington, D.C.: July 30,
2010.
Oil and Gas Management: Past Work Offers Insights to Consider in
Restructuring Interior's Oversight. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-888T]. Washington, D.C.: July 22,
2010.
Oil and Gas Management: Key Elements to Consider for Providing
Assurance of Effective Independent Oversight. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-852T]. Washington, D.C.: June 17,
2010.
Workforce Planning: Interior, EPA, and the Forest Service Should
Strengthen Linkages to Their Strategic Plans and Improve Evaluation.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-413]. Washington, D.C.:
March 31, 2010.
Oil and Gas Management: Interior's Oil and Gas Production Verification
Efforts Do Not Provide Reasonable Assurance of Accurate Measurement of
Production Volumes. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-313]. Washington, D.C.: March 15,
2010.
Offshore Oil and Gas Development: Additional Guidance Would Help
Strengthen the Minerals Management Service's Assessment of
Environmental Impacts in the North Aleutian Basin. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-276]. Washington, D.C.: March 8,
2010.
Oil and Gas Bonds: Bonding Requirements and BLM Expenditures to
Reclaim Orphaned Wells. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-245]. Washington, D.C.: January 27,
2010.
Energy Policy Act of 2005: Greater Clarity Needed to Address Concerns
with Categorical Exclusions for Oil and Gas Development under Section
390 of the Act. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-872].
Washington, D.C.: September 16, 2009.
Mineral Revenues: MMS Could Do More to Improve the Accuracy of Key
Data Used to Collect and Verify Oil and Gas Royalties. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-549]. Washington, D.C.: July 15,
2009.
Oil and Gas Leasing: Interior Could Do More to Encourage Diligent
Development. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-74].
Washington, D.C.: October 3, 2008.
Mineral Revenues: Data Management Problems and Reliance on Self-
Reported Data for Compliance Efforts Put MMS Royalty Collections at
Risk. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-893R].
Washington, D.C.: September 12, 2008.
Oil and Gas Royalties: The Federal System for Collecting Oil and Gas
Revenues Needs Comprehensive Reassessment. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-691]. Washington, D.C.: September
3, 2008.
Oil and Gas Royalties: Litigation over Royalty Relief Could Cost the
Federal Government Billions of Dollars. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-792R]. Washington, D.C.: June 5,
2008.
Oil and Gas Royalties: A Comparison of the Share of Revenue Received
from Oil and Gas Production by the Federal Government and Other
Resource Owners. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-676R].
Washington, D.C.: May 1, 2007.
Oil and Gas Royalties: Royalty Relief Will Cost the Government
Billions of Dollars but Uncertainty Over Future Energy Prices and
Production Levels Make Precise Estimates Impossible at this Time.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-590R]. Washington,
D.C.: April 12, 2007.
Oil and Gas Development: Increased Permitting Activity Has Lessened
BLM's Ability to Meet Its Environmental Protection Responsibilities.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-418]. Washington, D.C.:
June 17, 2005.
Generating Other Revenue Collections and Enhancing Financial
Assurances and Bonds:
Oil and Gas Bonds: Bonding Requirements and BLM Expenditures to
Reclaim Orphaned Wells. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-245]. Washington, D.C.: January 27,
2010.
Surface Coal Mining: Financial Assurances for, and Long-Term Oversight
of, Mines with Valley Fills in Four Appalachian States. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-206]. Washington, D.C.: January 14,
2010.
Hardrock Mining: Information on State Royalties and Trends in Mineral
Imports and Exports. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-849R]. Washington, D.C.: July 21,
2008.
Hardrock Mining: Information on Abandoned Mines and Value and Coverage
of Financial Assurances on BLM Land. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-574T]. Washington, D.C.: March 12,
2008.
Recreation Fees: Agencies Can Better Implement the Federal Lands
Recreation Enhancement Act and Account for Fee Revenues. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-1016]. Washington, D.C.: September
22, 2006.
Information Security:
Information Security: Federal Agencies Have Taken Steps to Secure
Wireless Networks, but Further Actions Can Mitigate Risk. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-43]. Washington, D.C.: November 30,
2010.
Cybersecurity: Continued Attention Is Needed to Protect Federal
Information Systems from Evolving Threats. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-834T]. Washington, D.C.: June 16,
2010.
Information Security: Agencies Need to Implement Federal Desktop Core
Configuration Requirements. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-202]. Washington, D.C.: March 12,
2010.
Information Security: Agencies Continue to Report Progress, but Need
to Mitigate Persistent Weaknesses. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-546]. Washington, D.C.: July 17,
2009.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, Department of the Interior: Major Management Challenges,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-425T]. (Washington,
D.C.: Mar. 3, 2009).
[2] For more information on the agencies' efforts to address these
recommendations, see GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Federal Agencies
Have Taken Important Steps Forward, but Additional, Strategic Action
Is Needed to Capitalize on Those Steps, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-877] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9,
2009).
[3] Pub. L. No. 111-88, § 503, 123 Stat. 2971 (2009).
[4] GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Lack of Clear Goals or a Strategy
Hinders Federal Agencies' Efforts to Contain the Costs of Fighting
Fires, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-655]
(Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2007).
[5] GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Better Information and a Systematic
Process Could Improve Agencies' Approach to Allocating Fuel Reduction
Funds and Selecting Projects, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1168] (Washington, D.C: Sept. 28,
2007).
[6] GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Interagency Budget Tool Needs
Further Development to Fully Meet Key Objectives, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-68] (Washington, D.C: Nov. 24,
2008).
[7] GAO, Climate Change: Agencies Should Develop Guidance for
Addressing the Effects on Federal Land and Water Resources,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-863] (Washington, D.C.:
Aug. 7, 2007).
[8] GAO, Alaska Native Villages: Limited Progress Has Been Made on
Relocating Villages Threatened by Flooding and Erosion, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-551] (Washington, D.C.: June 3,
2009).
[9] GAO, Climate Change Adaptation: Strategic Federal Planning Could
Help Government Officials Make More Informed Decisions, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-113] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 7,
2009).
[10] Secretarial Order No. 3289 (Sept. 14, 2009), as amended. The
order, among other things, designated eight regional Climate Change
Response Centers, now known as Climate Science Centers. Secretarial
Order No. 3289, Amendment No. 1 (Feb. 22, 2010). According to
Interior, these centers will synthesize existing climate change impact
data and management strategies, help resource managers put them into
action on the ground, and engage the public through education
initiatives. Interior has also identified specific adaptation
strategies and tools for natural resource managers. For example,
Interior provided a number of adaptation-related policy options for
land managers in reports produced for its Climate Change Task Force, a
past effort that has since been expanded upon to reflect new
priorities.
[11] GAO, Federal Lands: Adopting a Formal, Risk-Based Approach Could
Help Land Management Agencies Better Manage Their Law Enforcement
Resources, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-144]
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 17, 2010).
[12] GAO, Border Security: Additional Actions Needed to Better Ensure
a Coordinated Federal Response to Illegal Activity on Federal Lands,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-177] (Washington, D.C.:
Nov. 18, 2010).
[13] GAO, Southwest Border: More Timely Border Patrol Access and
Training Could Improve Security Operations and Natural Resource
Protection on Federal Lands, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-38] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 19,
2010).
[14] 25 C.F.R. pt. 151.
[15] GAO, Indian Issues: BIA's Efforts to Impose Time Frames and
Collect Better Data Should Improve the Processing of Land in Trust
Applications, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-781]
(Washington, D.C.: July 28, 2006).
[16] Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1058 (2009).
[17] Act of June 18, 1934 (Indian Reorganization Act), ch. 576, 48
Stat. 984-988 (1934), codified as amended at 25 U.S.C. §§ 461-479.
[18] For additional information on BIA's administrative process for
granting federal recognition and a list of newly recognized tribes see
GAO, Indian Issues: Improvements Needed in Tribal Recognition Process,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-49] (Washington, D.C.:
Nov. 2, 2001). Also see enclosure II of GAO, Indian Issues: BLM's
Program for Issuing Individual Allotments on Public Lands Is No Longer
Viable, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-23R]
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 20, 2006) and appendix II of GAO, Native
American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: After Almost 20
Years, Key Federal Agencies Still Have Not Fully Complied with the
Act, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-768] (Washington,
D.C.: July 28, 2010) for updated lists of new and restored tribes. The
Shinnecock Indian Nation of New York, the newest federally recognized
tribe, was recognized as of October 1, 2010. 75 Fed. Reg. 66124 (Oct.
27, 2010).
[19] Patchak v. Salazar, 646 F. Supp. 2d 72 (D.D.C. 2009), vacated by
Patchak v. Salazar, No. 09-5324 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 21, 2011); Clark
County v. Salazar, No. 11-00278 (D.C. Cir. filed Jan. 31, 2011).
[20] GAO, U.S. Insular Areas: Opportunities Exist to Improve
Interior's Grant Oversight and Reduce the Potential for Mismanagement,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-347] (Washington, D.C.:
Mar. 16, 2010).
[21] GAO, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands: Pending
Legislation Would Apply U.S. Immigration Law to the CNMI with a
Transition Period, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-466]
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 28, 2008); GAO, Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands: Managing Potential Economic Impact of Applying U.S.
Immigration Law Requires Coordinated Federal Decisions and Additional
Data, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-791] (Washington,
D.C.: Aug. 4, 2008); GAO, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands: Coordinated Federal Decisions and Additional Data Are Needed
to Manage Potential Economic Impact of Applying U.S. Immigration Law,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-426T] (Washington,
D.C.: May 19, 2009); GAO, CNMI Immigration and Border Control
Databases, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-345R]
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 16, 2010); and GAO, Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands: DHS Should Conclude Negotiations and
Finalize Regulations to Implement Federal Immigration Law, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-553] (Washington, D.C.: May 7,
2010).
[22] Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-229,
Title VII, 122 Stat. 754, 853 (2008). The Secretary of Homeland
Security elected to delay the transition period start date from June
1, 2009, to November 28, 2009, as permitted by the law. U.S.
immigration law was applied to the CNMI November 28, 2009, as
scheduled; however, implementation of the CNMI transitional worker
program was delayed following a federal court injunction just before
the transition period start date that required the Department of
Homeland Security to allow more time for public comment on the
proposed program regulations. As of January 2011, the department had
not yet issued final regulations for the transitional worker program.
[23] In providing the technical assistance, the federal government
should consult with the CNMI government, local businesses, regional
banks, and other CNMI economy experts.
[24] 75 Fed. Reg. 79264 (Dec. 20, 2010).
[25] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-791]. Report on
the factors that would affect the impact of the law's implementation
on the CNMI economy, in particular the CNMI's (1) labor market,
including foreign workers; (2) tourism sector; and (3) foreign
investment.
[26] U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq
Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-28, § 8103,
121 Stat. 188 (2007), as amended by Pub. L. No. 111-244, 124 Stat.
2618 (2010), codified at 29 U.S.C. § 206 note. Under the law, any
future changes to the minimum wage enacted under U.S. law for the 50
states, District of Columbia, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and Puerto
Rico also will apply to American Samoa and the CNMI. For changes
enacted before American Samoa and the CNMI would have reached the
current U.S. minimum wage, the minimum wages in the two areas would
continue to increase in $0.50 increments until they reach the federal
minimum wage, extending beyond the current time frames. After each
area reaches the U.S. minimum wage, any additional increase in the
U.S. minimum wage would apply to American Samoa and the CNMI on the
same schedule as for the 50 U.S. states. In September 2010, the United
States enacted a law delaying the scheduled minimum wage increases in
both areas, providing for no increase in the CNMI in 2010, and no
increase in American Samoa in 2010 or 2011. See Pub. L. No. 111-244,
124 Stat. 2618 (2010).
[27] GAO, American Samoa and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands: Wages, Employment, Employer Actions, Earnings, and Worker
Views Since Minimum Wage Increases Began, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-333] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 8,
2010). Results regarding workers affected by the minimum wage
increases are based on responses to our questionnaire of employers in
each area with 50 or more employees.
[28] Malcolm D. McPhee & Associates with Dick Conway and Lewis Wolman,
American Samoa's Economic Future and the Cannery Industry, prepared
for the American Samoa Department of Commerce under an OIA grant
(February 2008); and Malcolm D. McPhee & Associates and Dick Conway,
Economic Impact of Federal Laws on the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, prepared for the CNMI Office of the Governor under an
OIA grant (October 2008).
[29] GAO, Federal Land Management: Challenges to Implementing the
Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-259T] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 17,
2009).
[30] In 2008 we reported that from August 2007--7 years after FLTFA
was enacted--through 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. See GAO, Federal Land Management:
Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act Restrictions and Management
Weaknesses Limit Future Sales and Acquisitions, GAO-08-196
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 5, 2008).
[31] The Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010 extended
FLTFA's authorization until July 25, 2011. Pub. L. No. 111-212, §
3007(a) (2010).
[32] The act provides that upon termination of the Federal Land
Disposal Account--the account containing the program's funds--any
remaining balance in the account shall become available for
appropriation under Section 3 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
Act.
[33] GAO, Federal Land Management: BLM and the Forest Service Have
Improved Oversight of the Land Exchange Process, but Additional
Actions Are Needed, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-611] (Washington, D.C.: June 12,
2009).
[34] BLM regulations define "assembled land exchange" to mean the
consolidation of multiple parcels of federal and/or nonfederal land
for purposes of one or more exchange transactions over a period of
time. 43 C.F.R. § 2200.0-5(f). We refer to assembled exchanges that
involve more than one closing transaction as "multiphase exchanges."
[35] Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management,
Instruction Memorandum No. 2010-122, Processing of Land Exchanges and
Management of Value Imbalances in Land Exchanges (May 14, 2010).
[36] GAO, Bureau of Land Management and General Services
Administration--Selected Land Transactions, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/B-318274] (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 23,
2010). We also examined selected land transactions that BLM, working
under an agreement with the General Services Administration, carried
out in the state of California. We concluded that although two of the
transactions were indeed exchanges consistent with the provisions of
the California Desert Protection Act, numerous other transactions were
not exchanges but instead were purchases and sales of public land or
surplus federal real property. As in the transactions in the state of
Washington, these actions violated the Miscellaneous Receipts Statute
and improperly augmented BLM's land acquisition appropriations.
[37] Interior is not alone in facing daunting maintenance challenges.
In fact, we identified the management of federal real property,
including deferred maintenance issues, as a governmentwide high-risk
area in 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009. For our 2011 update of the high-
risk areas, we amended the federal real property area and it no longer
includes managing the condition of facilities. While federal agencies
still face a challenge of reducing their deferred maintenance in light
of the federal deficit and long-term fiscal challenges facing the
nation, we no longer consider it a governmentwide high-risk area. See
GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-278] (Washington, D.C.: February
2011).
[38] Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115 (2009). Interior received nearly
$3 billion under the act. The funds are being spent on, among other
things, facilities and roads improvements and construction, according
to Interior's Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2010.
[39] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-278].
[40] GAO, Oil and Gas Royalties: The Federal System for Collecting Oil
and Gas Revenues Needs Comprehensive Reassessment, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-691] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 3,
2008).
[41] GAO, Oil and Gas Management: Interior's Oil and Gas Production
Verification Efforts Do Not Provide Reasonable Assurance of Accurate
Measurement of Production Volumes, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-313] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15,
2010).
[42] GAO, Federal Oil and Gas Leases: Opportunities Exist to Capture
Vented and Flared Natural Gas, Which Would Increase Royalty Payments
and Reduce Greenhouse Gases, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-34] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 29,
2010).
[43] GAO, Mineral Revenues: MMS Could Do More to Improve the Accuracy
of Key Data Used to Collect and Verify Oil and Gas Royalties,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-549] (Washington, D.C.:
July 15, 2009).
[44] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-313].
[45] GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist
Mergers and Organizational Transformations, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-669] (Washington, D.C.: July 2,
2003).
[46] GAO, Onshore Oil and Gas: BLM's Management of Public Protests to
Its Lease Sales Needs Improvement, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-670] (Washington, D.C.: July 30,
2010).
[47] GAO, Offshore Oil and Gas Development: Additional Guidance Would
Help Strengthen the Minerals Management Service's Assessment of
Environmental Impacts in the North Aleutian Basin, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-276] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 8,
2010).
[48] GAO, Energy Policy Act of 2005: Greater Clarity Needed to Address
Concerns with Categorical Exclusions for Oil and Gas Development under
Section 390 of the Act, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-872] (Washington, D.C.: Sept.16,
2009).
[49] GAO, Hardrock Mining: Information on State Royalties and Trends
in Mineral Imports and Exports, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-849R] (Washington, D.C.: July 21,
2008).
[50] GAO, Hardrock Mining: Information on Abandoned Mines and Value
and Coverage of Financial Assurances on BLM Land, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-574T] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 12,
2008).
[51] GAO, Surface Coal Mining: Financial Assurances for, and Long-Term
Oversight of, Mines with Valley Fills in Four Appalachian States,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-206] (Washington, D.C.:
Jan. 14, 2010).
[52] GAO, Oil and Gas Bonds: Bonding Requirements and BLM Expenditures
to Reclaim Orphaned Wells, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-245] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 27,
2010).
[53] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-278].
[54] GAO, Information Security: Agencies Need to Implement Federal
Desktop Core Configuration Requirements, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-202] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 12,
2010). The federal desktop core configuration initiative (now known as
the United States Government Configuration Baseline) established a set
of common security configurations for Windows XP and Vista operating
systems used by federal agencies that is intended to provide a
baseline level of security, reduce risk from security threats and
vulnerabilities, improve system performance, and ensure public
confidence in the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of
government information. GAO, Information Security: Federal Agencies
Have Taken Steps to Secure Wireless Networks, but Further Actions Can
Mitigate Risk, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-43]
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 30, 2010).
[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:
