Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of the Interior
(Letter Report, 01/01/2001, GAO/GAO-01-249).

This report, part of GAO's high risk series, discusses the major
management challenges and program risks facing the Department of the
Interior. Interior needs to (1) improve its management of national
parks, (2) address persistent management problems in the Indian trust
fund programs, (3) improve management of ecosystem restoration efforts,
and (4) address challenges in managing an expanding land base.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  GAO-01-249
     TITLE:  Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department
	     of the Interior
      DATE:  01/01/2001
   SUBJECT:  Risk management
	     Accountability
	     Land management
	     Internal controls
	     Interagency relations
	     Funds management
	     National parks
	     Trust funds
IDENTIFIER:  Outer Continental Shelf
	     Grand Canyon National Park (AZ)
	     Yosemite National Park (CA)
	     Denali National Park and Preserve (AK)
	     Gettysburg National Military Park (PA)
	     Statue of Liberty National Monument (NY)
	     National Park System
	     Arches National Park (UT)
	     Independence National Historical Park (PA)
	     Mt. Rushmore National Park (SD)
	     Ellis Island (NY)
	     National Park Service Natural Resources Inventory and
	     Monitoring Program
	     Colonial National Historical Park (VA)
	     Acadia National Park (ME)
	     Ford's Theatre National Historic Site (DC)
	     Indian Trust Fund
	     Everglades National Park (FL)
	     Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project
	     Cerro Grande (NM)
	     GAO High Risk Series
	     High Risk Series 2001

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-01-249

Performance and Accountability Series

January 2001 Major Management Challenges and Program Risks

Department of the Interior

GAO- 01- 249

Lett er

January 2001 The President of the Senate The Speaker of the House of
Representatives

This report addresses the major performance and accountability challenges
facing the Department of the Interior as it seeks to strike a balance
between its two basic mandates- to protect and preserve the nation's

resources for the benefit of future generations while at the same time
accommodating demands for their greater use and consumption. It includes a
summary of actions that Interior has taken and that are under way to address
these challenges. It also outlines further actions that GAO believes are
needed. This analysis should help the new Congress and administration carry
out their responsibilities and improve government for the benefit of the
American people.

This report is part of a special series, first issued in January 1999,
entitled the Performance and Accountability Series: Major Management
Challenges

and Program Risks. In that series, GAO advised the Congress that it planned
to reassess the methodologies and criteria used to determine which federal
government operations and functions should be highlighted and which should
be designated as “high risk.” GAO completed the assessment,
considered comments provided on a publicly available exposure draft, and
published its guidance document, Determining Performance and Accountability
Challenges and High Risks (GAO- 01- 159SP), in

November 2000. This 2001 Performance and Accountability Series contains
separate reports on 21 agencies- covering each cabinet department, most
major independent

agencies, and the U. S. Postal Service. The series also includes a
governmentwide perspective on performance and management challenges across
the federal government. As a companion volume to this series, GAO is issuing
an update on those government operations

and programs that its work identified as “high risk” because of
either their greater vulnerabilities to waste, fraud, abuse, and
mismanagement or major challenges associated with their economy, efficiency,
or effectiveness.

David M. Walker Comptroller General

of the United States

Overview The Department of the Interior has jurisdiction over about 450
million acres of land- about one- fifth of the total U. S. landmass- and
about 1. 5 billion acres of the Outer Continental Shelf. As the guardian of
these resources, the Department is entrusted to preserve the nation's most
awe- inspiring landscapes, such as the wild beauty of the Grand Canyon,
Yosemite, and Denali national parks; our most historic places, like
Independence Hall and the Gettysburg battlefield; and

such revered national icons as the Statue of Liberty and the Washington
Monument. At the same time, Interior 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 native Alaskans; protect habitat to sustain fish and wildlife; help
manage water resources in the western states; and provide scientific and
technical

information to allow for sound decision- making about resources. In recent
years, the Congress has appropriated about $7 billion to $8 billion annually
to meet these responsibilities. With these resources, Interior employs about
66, 000 people in eight major agencies and bureaus at over 4, 000 sites
around the country.

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.
GAO and others have identified management problems facing the Department and
have made many recommendations to improve its agencies

and programs. In some cases, Interior has made significant improvements; in
others, progress has been slow. As a result, several major performance and
accountability challenges remain.

Improve management of national parks ? Address persistent management
problems in

Indian trust programs ? Improve management of ecosystem restoration

efforts ? Address challenges in managing an expanding

land base

The National Park The National Park Service, with almost 300 million Service
visitors to its national park system annually, provides the public with some
of the best recreational opportunities in the country. In recent years, as
demands

for its services have increased, so have the budgets of the Park Service and
the number of units in the national park system. Among other things, these
trends have placed new strains on the National Park Service's ability to
meet visitors' recreational needs in a safe and

enjoyable manner while simultaneously protecting, preserving, and
maintaining the natural, cultural, and historic treasures in its care.

The Park Service acknowledges its shortcomings in many areas and has taken
steps to adopt fresh approaches to address its considerable needs. Our work,
however, has shown that these efforts have fallen short in several
significant areas. First, the Service must place a higher priority on
collecting more comprehensive

scientific information on the condition of the resources in its care to
ensure that its planning and funding processes focus on the most pressing
needs. Second, the

Service needs to gather more accurate data on its backlog of maintenance
problems to better set priorities for projects and to budget accordingly.
Third, it should improve park managers' accountability for achieving
results. Current Park Service policy allows individual

park managers to determine whether their priorities and budgets are
consistent with overall departmental and agency priorities and goals.
Fourth, the Service needs to address persistent management problems in its

concessions program. Specifically, the Service needs to ensure that
concession specialists and contracting staff are adequately qualified and
trained and should discontinue its use of outdated practices to manage its
chronic backlog of expired contracts. Finally, the Service needs to better
manage its structural fire safety program for the over 30,000 structures
under its responsibility. The Service should, at a minimum,

perform risk assessments at each unit within the park system, develop plans
to correct identified needs, and ensure that all new construction complies
with generally accepted fire codes. Whereas visitor and employee safety
remains a high priority within the Department and

the Service, park managers have yet to emphasize this program in their
operating and budget priorities. Indian Trust

Although the Department of the Interior manages over Programs $3 billion in
Indian trust funds and over $1. 8 billion in budgeted resources for tribes,
it cannot assure trust account holders that their balances are accurate or
that

their assets are being properly managed. In our last report on the
Department's management challenges, we demonstrated that problems continue
to plague the trust fund program despite recent improvements. Our work has
shown that the Department needs to continue updating its trust fund
management information systems

and to ensure the accuracy of its trust fund records by correcting thousands
of inaccurate, incomplete, or outdated entries. In addition, the Department
continues to struggle with budget formulation problems impeding tribal
selfdetermination policy- a national policy providing for tribal
participation in and management of federal Indian programs. Specifically,
the Bureau of Indian Affairs- the primary federal agency charged with
providing tribal services- needs to target future budget increases to tribes
to ensure that the hundreds of millions of dollars allocated directly to
them meets their most pressing needs. Furthermore, the Department and the
Bureau need to work with the Congress to find ways to alleviate budget
shortfalls in tribal self- determination contracts. According to tribes,
these shortfalls in contract support costs limit their ability to contract
for and manage their programs.

Ecosystem Management problems hinder the Department's ability Restoration

to effectively direct its efforts to maintain healthy natural systems. These
efforts range from restoring significant ecosystems, such as the Florida
Everglades,

to managing the use of fire to reduce the accumulation of hazardous fuels,
such as small trees and underbrush in forested ecosystems. These ecosystem
management projects, which focus on ecological, scientific, economic, and
social factors that extend beyond the administrative jurisdiction of
Department agencies,

require collaboration with outside entities, such as other federal agencies,
states, and private landowners.

Our past work found that the Department needs to take several actions to
improve its ability to manage these efforts. First, the Department needs to
work with outside entities to develop plans and strategies that will achieve
restoration and management goals. Second, the Department needs to improve
its coordination with the

multiple entities involved in these efforts by ensuring coordination
procedures are in place and that a means to resolve conflicts exists.
Lastly, to prepare for the expected attrition of its most experienced
personnel, the Department needs to develop a succession plan for replacing
the individuals who currently manage and suppress fire outbreaks on federal
lands.

Land Exchanges The Department oversees transactions to exchange, acquire, or
dispose of lands in the federal land base. It now manages about 450 million
acres of federal lands

reserved for such purposes as parks, wildlife refuges, recreational areas,
forests, and historical and cultural sites. The Department currently does
not list the sound management of its land transactions as a strategic or a

performance goal. However, the number of land transactions has the potential
to increase dramatically, particularly under the Department's new Lands
Legacy Initiative and the recently passed Federal Land Transaction
Facilitation Act. We believe that as the number of transactions increases,
the Department's efforts to manage these transactions will become more
challenging. In the last year, our work has shown that the Department,
particularly the Bureau of Land Management, needs to better demonstrate (1)
that the land exchange is necessary and (2) that exchanged lands

are of approximately equal value. If these conditions cannot be met, the
Congress should consider discontinuing the program. Additionally, the Bureau
needs to guarantee that funds used in the exchange transactions are properly
managed and controlled. Finally, the Department should highlight the need
for increased funding to operate and maintain newly acquired lands when
reporting its budget to the Congress.

Follow- Through Interior has acknowledged the need to address many of Needed

these challenges, and for the most part, has begun taking steps to rectify
these shortcomings. To meet its management challenges the Department and its
agencies need to make fundamental improvements in areas such as strategic
planning, human capital, organizational alignment and control, and financial

management and internal controls. Actions already taken by the Department to
meet the Government Performance and Results Act will move the Department and
its agencies in the right direction. However, much remains to be done, such
as completing financial and information systems for Indian trust funds, for
park resources, and for operation and maintenance costs for acquired lands.
It is still too early to determine if some corrective actions that the
Department has undertaken will be effective. In order to ensure that
Interior follows through on its efforts to deal with the major performance
and management challenges that we and others have identified, the Congress
needs to monitor the

Department's progress by reviewing the Department's and agencies' annual
performance plans and reports. In some instances, such as the need to
improve accounting for Indian trust funds, management problems are
longstanding, and will take several years to improve. In other cases, such
as problems with ensuring the value of federal lands exchanged, the Congress
may need to pursue legislative remedies, such as providing

alternative means of federal land disposal or prohibiting lands exchanges
outright.

Major Performance and Accountability Issues

As caretaker of the nation's most precious natural and cultural treasures
and steward of trust responsibilities to American Indians and native
Alaskans, the Department of the Interior helps define the nature and spirit
of our common national heritage. In this capacity, Interior's programs and
activities affect the lives of Americans and the world community in many
ways. The public lands, parks, and waterways under Interior's jurisdiction
provide recreational opportunities for over 400 million visitors annually.
Commodities such as oil,

natural gas, minerals, and timber- with a combined market value of over $20
billion- are extracted from land and water resources under the Department's
purview each year. In addition, Interior provides educational, social, and
other services to more than 550 Indian tribes.

The overarching management challenge that faces Interior is the constant
need to maintain a balance between its two basic mandates- to protect and
conserve resources for the benefit of future generations while at the same
time accommodating the demands for their greater use and consumption. To
fulfill its basic mandates, the Department has developed strategic goals

that include protecting the environment and preserving our nation's natural
and cultural resources; providing recreation opportunities for America;
managing natural resources for a healthy environment and strong economy; and
meeting trust responsibilities to Indian tribes and commitments to island
communities.

Each year, the Department establishes performance plans to achieve these
strategic goals and associated long- term goals. In recent years, our work
has identified a number of management challenges facing Interior that limit
its progress in achieving these goals. Many of these

challenges are the result of Interior's agencies trying to manage the
difficult trade- offs inherent in achieving its two basic mandates. However,
in today's climate of smaller federal government, the need to reexamine past

approaches to help achieve increased effectiveness and efficiency is
imperative. We have made a number of recommendations to Interior on how to
better accomplish its goals in this climate.

Improve The Department, and specifically the National Park Management of
Service, has strategic goals to protect and preserve the

National Parks natural, historic, and cultural resources entrusted to its

care while providing the public safe and enjoyable visits. However, the Park
Service continues to face several significant management challenges, and we
have

recommended that it take the following actions in order to achieve these
goals:

? First, it should give higher priority to collecting better scientific
information on the condition of its resources to ensure that its planning
and funding processes address the most pressing needs. ? Second, the Service
needs to obtain more accurate

data on its backlog of maintenance problems to better set priorities for
projects and to budget accordingly. ? Third, it should improve park
managers' accountability for achieving results. This is especially important
for the Park Service, which lets individual

park managers determine local priorities and budgets that may or may not be
consistent with overall departmental and agency priorities and goals. ?
Fourth, the Service needs to address persistent management problems in its
concessions program.

Agency concession specialists and contracting staff are not adequately
qualified and trained, and the Service still uses outdated practices to
handle its chronic backlog of expired contracts. ? Finally, the Service
needs to better manage its structural fire safety program for the over
30,000 structures in its care, including hotels, motels, cabins, visitor
centers, and historic buildings.

Although visitor and employee safety remains a high priority within the
Department and the Service, park managers have not emphasized this program
enough in their operating and budget priorities. The Park Service has made
progress in addressing each of these management challenges, but, as
discussed below, more remains to be done.

Park Service Does A fundamental part of the Park Service's mission is to be
Not Know Condition

the caretaker of many of this nation's most precious of Many Resources

natural and cultural resources, ranging from the fragile ecosystems of
Arches National Park in Utah, to the historic structures of Philadelphia's
Independence Hall, to the granite faces of Mount Rushmore in South Dakota.
Although the Park Service acknowledges, and its policies emphasize, the
importance of managing parks on the basis of sound scientific information
about resources, such information management is seriously

deficient. Frequently, baseline information about natural and cultural
resources is incomplete or nonexistent, making it difficult for park
managers to clearly ascertain the condition of resources and whether
resources are deteriorating, improving, or staying the same. At the same
time, many park resources face significant threats, including air pollution,
vandalism, and nearby land

development. However, even when these threats are known, the Park Service
has limited scientific knowledge about their severity and possible impact on
affected resources. For example, as figure 1 shows, while the Ellis Island
immigration hall has been beautifully restored, other structures on the
island have deteriorated and are in serious need of repair.

Figure 1: Some Park Service Resources Like Those on Ellis Island, New York,
Remain in Need of Repair The Immigration Museum is one of a few buildings
that has been beautifully restored. About 20 other structures, however,
remain in seriously

Some artifacts are stored in rooms that have leaking deteriorated condition.

roofs and peeling walls.

Source: GAO photographs

To reduce threats to park resources, we have recommended, among other
things, that the Park Service identify the number, types, and sources of
threats; set priorities and develop action plans to

mitigate these threats; and monitor the results of these actions and revise
them as needed. According to the Park Service, initial steps have been taken
to improve the situation. Specifically, in fiscal year 2000, the Congress
increased funding for the Service's Natural Resources Inventory and
Monitoring Program by $8 million, to a level sufficient to fully fund all
basic natural resource inventories. In addition, in fiscal year 2001, a
$1.75 million increase for vegetation mapping

more than doubles the Service's capacity to produce these vital inventories.
The Service also received $4. 2 million to establish the initial phase of a
vital signs monitoring program in parks with extensive natural resources.
The Park Service has also noted improvement in its efforts to catalogue
cultural specimens and has begun efforts to preserve prehistoric and
historic desert sites.

Undoubtedly, additional progress in improving the scientific knowledge base
about park resources will be costly. Dealing with this challenge will
require the Park Service, the administration, and the Congress to make
difficult choices about how parks are managed and how budgets are
formulated. However, unless it acquires better information on the condition
of its assets, the Park Service will continue to face difficulties in its
efforts to (1) shift existing resources among competing priorities to
accomplish its goals and objectives; (2) rank priorities so that the most
pressing issues receive the most attention; (3) link the planning process
directly to budget decisions to have a greater impact on the allocation of
new limited resources; and (4) measure program results aimed at preserving
and protecting the

resources entrusted to it.

Park Service Does Interior also needs to safeguard its key resources.

Not Know Extent of Currently, the Park Service maintains 16, 000 permanent
Maintenance

structures, 8, 000 miles of roads, 1,500 bridges, 5,385 Problems

housing units, about 1, 500 water and wastewater systems, 200 radio systems,
more than 400 dams, and more than 200 solid waste operations. These
facilities include numerous cultural historic buildings and structures,
complex utility systems, and an extensive network of roads and trails to be
maintained at an operational level that ensures continued protection,
preservation, and serviceability. Despite the importance of its maintenance
program, the

Park Service has yet to accurately assess the scope of its maintenance
needs. For example, in January 1997, the Park Service estimated its deferred
maintenance backlog to be about $6.1 billion. Most of this amount- about $5.
6 billion, or 92 percent- had been budgeted for construction projects,
which, for the most part, were meant to correct maintenance problems at
existing facilities. However, we found that over 21 percent of the Park
Service's estimated maintenance budget had been used to construct new
facilities, such as $24 million for a bike path at the Colonial National
Historic Park in Virginia and $16. 6 million to replace a visitor center and

construct a park entrance at Acadia National Park in Maine. While we did not
question the need for these facilities, we did question whether these new
construction projects should have been included in the estimate of the
maintenance backlog. We concluded that the Park Service's lack of a common
definition for what should be included in the maintenance backlog
contributed to an inaccurate and out- of- date estimate.

We also noted that the Department's efforts to standardize such a definition
for all of its agencies should, if implemented properly, address this
problem. In September 1999, however, Interior's Inspector General reported
that the Park Service's September 1998

estimate of $3. 6 billion for deferred maintenance did not comply with
federal accounting standards or departmental guidance. As a result, the Park
Service had little assurance that its deferred maintenance accounting and
budget data were current, complete, and verifiable. According to the
Inspector General, this condition occurred because the Park Service did not
(1) conduct all needed assessments to identify asset conditions, (2)
document its estimated deferred maintenance costs, or (3) establish adequate
controls to ensure compliance with federal and departmental deferred
maintenance guidance. Park Service officials stated that they have initiated

actions to correct deficiencies in their maintenance program. First, the
Service established a universal definition of deferred maintenance. Second,
the Service

replaced existing facilities management computer software with a commercial
package that, according to Park Service officials, has been successfully
pilot tested. Park Service officials stated that the new software provides,
among other things, an accurate, consistent, and updated list of priority
backlog maintenance projects; nationwide data on asset quantity and
condition; and performance measures for linking expenditures with defined
outcomes and results. In fiscal year 2001, the Park Service will test this
software at additional parks. The Service believes the software will help it
to adhere to the Department and federal

accounting standards and reporting requirements. In addition, the Department
and the Park Service are developing a 5- year plan for funding priority
projects and evaluating alternative methods to maintain historic structures.

These efforts should, if properly implemented, help the agency better manage
its maintenance program. However, acquiring the necessary data and setting
up the needed processes will take several years. Since the processes to
support these initiatives are now being

developed and implemented, the Congress may wish to continue emphasizing the
importance of their effective implementation. Accountability of
Historically, Interior has been a highly decentralized Park Managers Needs

agency. For the most part, it has allowed its component Improvement agencies
to develop their own systems and processes for managing their programs.
Within the Park Service,

individual park managers reach spending decisions and operating priorities
within their respective parks. The limitation of this approach is that the
Park Service does

not accumulate data on results achieved or funds spent. Our past work has
shown that regional or headquarters staff rarely, if ever, discussed with
park managers the Service's operating priorities or the results accomplished
with the funds provided. Key components were missing to hold park managers
accountable, such as processes for setting results- oriented expectations or
monitoring outcomes. No expectations were established

for the goals that are to be achieved in the parks. As a result, the agency
lacked any means to monitor progress toward achieving its goals and to hold
park managers accountable for the results of park operations. Accountability
for results is especially important for an agency like the Park Service,
which sets priorities and

develops budgets at the park- unit level. The Park Service has issued plans
and reports consistent with the requirements of the Government Performance
and Results Act (GPRA). It now has a strategic plan that sets forth its
mission, long- term goals, and means of measuring progress toward those
goals. Furthermore, individual parks are expected to establish the strategic
and annual performance plans needed to implement the agency's strategic
plan. However, because the Park Service is decentralized and provides broad
discretion to park managers, it faces significant challenges in implementing
the top- down accountability system required by GPRA. As we discussed in our
last

performance and accountability report, to fully integrate GPRA's management
approach, Park Service managers must begin to define, in measurable terms,
how activities at their park contribute to achieving Servicewide goals
established in the Park Service's strategic plan.

According to Park Service officials, beginning in fiscal year 1999, park
superintendents are being held accountable for their accomplishments against
their park's annual performance plans in their annual performance
evaluations. We believe that sustained congressional attention to the
agency's implementation of GPRA would underscore the importance that the
Congress attaches to the success of this process and improve the
accountability of park managers.

Management Concessionaires play a critical role in providing services
Problems Continue to many of the almost 300 million visitors to the national
to Plague the

park system each year. Concessionaires are private Concessions Program
businesses that operate under contracts with the National Park Service to
provide facilities and services, such as lodging, food, merchandising,
marinas, and various guided services. In 1998, the latest year for which
data are available, 630 concessionaires provided visitor services in park
units that grossed about $765

million in revenues. For many years, we have joined the Congress, Interior's
Office of the Inspector General, and Park Service staff, in raising concerns
about the need for better management of the agency's concession program. In
March 2000, we identified basic problems with the Park Service's overall
approach to managing the concessions program. These management problems
center on three areas: (1) human capital issues, including inadequate
qualifications and training of the agency's concession specialists and
concessions contracting staff; (2) acquisition management issues, including
the agency's

out- of- date practices in handling its contracting workload and chronic
backlog of expired contracts; and (3) organizational control issues,
including a lack of accountability within the concessions program. Because
of these management problems, the Park Service

frequently has difficulty managing the performance of its concessionaires to
ensure a consistent level of quality and safety in the services and
facilities they provide. To increase the effectiveness of the Park Service's
concessions management program, we recommended that the Service improve the
qualifications of its concession staff (including improving their training
in writing and administering contracts), contract for these

services, or use some combination of the two approaches. The agency could
contract for expertise in certain functions while developing expertise in-
house

for other functions. However, both options require that the agency better
manage its human capital to ensure it selects, trains, develops, and manages
concession staff with the skills needed to realize improvements in the
program. Interior generally agrees with these proposals, and the Park
Service has already begun to take actions to address some of its concessions
program management

problems. For example, the Park Service has contracted with a private firm
to analyze its organizational structure and advise it on reengineering its
business processes. The Service is also developing a certification program
in hospitality management with a focus on business and

financial skills and a contracting certification program. Park Service
officials also stated that they are aggressively recruiting students from
top business

schools to hire as full- time concession personnel where needed. In
addition, the Service is considering outsourcing complex financial
components of the concession program, developing a funding strategy to
address the need for centralized and consistent program oversight, and
updating its contracting practices to

include performance based contracting. We believe that these actions are a
positive step and, if completed and implemented, will help improve the
program. The Park Service Is The Park Service is responsible for ensuring
that the

Not Meeting Safety buildings and artifacts entrusted to it are protected and
Responsibilities in that the people who visit or work in them are safe from
Many of Its undue hazards or risks. Today, the Park Service is the
Structures steward for over 30, 000 structures and over 80 million artifacts
nationwide. These structures include hotels;

motels; cabins; visitor centers; interpretative centers; and historic
buildings, such as many former presidents' homes. However, structural fire
safety efforts in several national parks we visited were not effective. The
Park Service's structural fire activity lacks many elementary components
required for any effective fire safety effort. These gaps include such
fundamental things as

inadequate fire training for employees, inadequate or nonexistent fire
inspections, and- for many buildings- inadequate or nonexistent fire
detection or suppression systems. These situations create many fire safety
hazards. As a result of these conditions, the safety of park visitors,
employees, buildings, and artifacts is being jeopardized, making the
structures and artifacts vulnerable to fire that could inevitably cause
damage, destruction, severe injury, and even the loss of life. (Fig.

2 illustrates this problem at the Ford National Theatre.)

Figure 2: Boxes Impeding Effectiveness of Fire Sprinkler in Storage Area of
the Ford National Theatre, Washington, D. C.

Source: GAO photograph

Parks lack an effective structural fire safety effort because the Park
Service (1) has not fully specified the minimum standards individual parks
must meet and (2) has placed little emphasis on structural fire safety. As a
result, park managers have assigned this aspect of the operations a low
priority, which is inconsistent with the Park Service's strategic goals and
its assertions that health and safety issues are a top agency priority. To
enable the Park Service to meet its structural fire safety responsibilities,
we recommended that the Service complete and implement initiatives that
should, at a minimum, (1) establish minimum structural fire safety
requirements throughout the park system, (2) provide a fire safety risk
assessment at each unit of the park

system, (3) develop plans to correct identified needs, and (4) ensure that
all new construction complies with generally accepted fire codes.
Furthermore, to ensure that park managers elevate the priority given to
addressing structural fire safety needs, we recommended that park managers
be held accountable for developing and implementing effective structural
fire safety programs. The Park Service is aware that major weaknesses exist
in its structural fire safety effort and has begun to address them. For
example, the Service has contracted with an engineering firm to conduct
structural fire assessments of selected high- priority buildings. It has

also committed to filling structural fire management officer positions in
each region. In addition, in accordance with Interior's fiscal year 2001
appropriations bill, the Service has developed a plan and funding estimate
for upgrading all its facilities to meet structural fire safety
requirements. Although these recent initiatives should help correct the
deficiencies in the Service's structural fire safety program, they will
require sustained follow- through and sufficient funds to complete. We found
another safety concern in the national park system's lodging facilities.
Each year, the Park Service provides visitors to our national parks a
variety of overnight lodging accommodations, including deluxe,

mid- scale, and economy rooms. In some cases, these lodging facilities are
the only ones located in or near the park. Concessionaires manage these
lodging facilities under contract with the Park Service. Although the Park
Service has standards for lodging facilities in national

parks, similar industry standards impose additional requirements, including
more safety measures. For example, smoke detectors, dead- bolt locks, and
door viewports- all required by the lodging industry- are not required by
Park Service standards. Although most rooms we inspected had safety and
security devices,

some rooms either contained devices that did not function or had none at
all. To improve lodging accommodations throughout the park system, we
recommended that the Park Service establish a formal process for performing
periodic independent inspections of the concessionaires' lodging operations.

The Department acknowledged the need to repair, rehabilitate, and upgrade
some of its lodging facilities, and stated that these situations will be
addressed as funding becomes available. In addition, the Park Service is
conferring with the hotel industry to revise its existing lodging standards.
These revised standards include

additional safety requirements. However, the Park Service has been
attempting to revise these standards since 1998; as of October 2000, the new
standards were not yet final. We believe that the Congress may wish to
monitor the agency's progress in this and the structural fire safety area.
Key Contact Barry T. Hill, Director Natural Resources and Environment (202)
512- 3841 hillb@ gao. gov Address Persistent

As the department responsible for administering the Management

federal government's trust responsibilities to tribes and Problems in Indian
individual Indians, Interior manages $3 billion in Indian Trust Programs
trust funds and provides more than $700 million annually for basic tribal
services such as social services, police, and natural resource management.
Over the

years, we have reported on Interior's poor management of these trust funds
and programs. In the last 2 years, Interior has taken specific actions to
address management problems, but significant challenges remain. Despite
Interior's efforts, inadequate accounting and information systems, poor
record- keeping and

internal controls, and other weaknesses prevent the Department from ensuring
the funds are properly managed. In addition, management issues impede the
tribes' progress toward self- determination, that is, tribal participation
in and management of programs previously administered on their behalf by the
federal government. Indian Trust Funds

The Secretary of the Interior is responsible for and Assets Need to
administering the government's trust responsibilities to Be More Effectively

tribes and individual Indians, including about $3 billion Managed in Indian
trust funds and about 54 million acres of Indian lands. Management of Indian
trust funds and assets has

long been characterized by inadequate financial management, such as poor
accounting and information systems; untrained and inexperienced staff;
backlogs in appraisals, determinations of ownership, and recordkeeping; the
lack of a master lease file or accountsreceivable system; inadequate written
policies and procedures; and poor internal controls. As a result, account
holders have no assurance that their account balances are accurate, or that
the fund's assets are being

managed properly. In April 1998, Interior launched a major initiative
incorporating 11 subprojects to solve these problems. The initiative called
for correcting administrative records for trust accounts, clarifying land
title and resource management information, eliminating probate backlogs, and
reviewing and changing the appraisal system for trust lands. In February
2000, the Department issued an update on its progress in implementing the 11
subprojects. According to the report, the Department completed one
subproject, which established a new trust fund accounting and investment
system, and continues to make progress on the other subprojects,

including record management improvements to be completed in May 2002. While
the Department has taken

steps in the right direction, its many management problems persist and will
take several years to resolve. In September 2000, we reported on the
progress of another of the subprojects included in the initiative- the
acquisition of a new system to manage trust assets. We found that Interior
had taken key steps to instill the processes, practices, and discipline to
successfully guide the acquisition. The officials responsible for managing
the trust now recognize the importance of disciplined system acquisition,
development, and testing

processes. Interior has adopted a life cycle- model for the system, which
defines the management expectations of the system from conception to
deployment and support. It has also developed several plans and policies to
enhance system management; strengthened test processes for the system; and
begun developing systems architecture. Still, we found some shortcomings and
recommended

that the Department develop key components of an information systems
technology architecture. Interior has not yet issued complete policies and
procedures on trust fund management or cleaned up thousands of inaccurate,
incomplete, or outdated trust fund records.

In addition, the Department disagrees with our position that the business
processes that the system will support need to be reengineered. Until these
matters are addressed, the Department will continue to face significant
challenges to ensuring that the system will operate efficiently and
effectively. Management Issues The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is the
primary federal

Impede Progress agency charged with implementing federal Indian policy

Toward SelfDetermination and administering the federal trust responsibility
for 1. 4 million American Indians and native Alaskans. BIA

provides basic services to the tribes throughout the United States,
including social services, child welfare services, and natural resources
management. The 556

federally recognized tribes have two ways of influencing the programs that
affect them. First, they can work with BIA to allocate a portion of the
Bureau's budget to programs that the tribes choose. The funds, which account
for nearly half of BIA's budget, are distributed

through a process called tribal priority allocations. Second, under the
Indian Self- Determination Act, tribes can establish self- determination
contracts to manage some of the programs that BIA has traditionally

managed on their behalf. BIA's budget formulation and execution process,
specifically its distribution of tribal priority allocation funds, is not
responsive to changes in the relative needs of the tribes. Furthermore,
there is no assurance that the funds are effectively targeting the most
pressing needs among tribes. In fiscal year 2000, about $700 million was
allocated with the participation of individual tribes. In 1998, we found
that BIA's distribution to each tribe was

based largely on historical factors, that is, the amount available to a
tribe generally remained unchanged from year to year. This method did not
consider a tribe's changing needs. In response to our report, the Congress
directed BIA to develop alternate methods of distributing tribal priority
allocations. In its 1999 task force report on tribal priority funds, BIA
acknowledged that funding inequities exist among the tribes but decided-
with the concurrence of the tribes- that the current distribution of funds
should

not be changed to address those inequities. Instead, BIA concluded that
future increases in funding should be targeted at tribes that need greater
funding. To accomplish this, we believe BIA would have to develop criteria
for determining tribes' needs and to establish the factors that will
determine funding levels. BIA has not done this, and until it does, funding
inequities will persist.

To compound the tribes' difficulties in collecting funds for self-
determination, tribes have not received adequate funds to cover the costs of
supporting Indian selfdetermination contracts. Over half of BIA's budget,
including some tribal priority funds, is provided to tribes through
contracts. Tribes use these funds to help pay for

the indirect and administrative costs for contracts. However, total
shortfalls in this area reached about $25 million in fiscal year 1997. These
losses reflect a trend underway since 1995. [See fig. 3]

Figure 3: BIA's Contract Support Cost Shortfalls, Fiscal Years 1995- 2000

30 Dollars in millions

25 20 15 10

5 0

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Fiscal year

Source: GAO analysis of BIA data.

According to tribes, these shortfalls have either forced a reduction in the
services available to tribal members or caused tribes to use their own
limited resources, thereby prohibiting the further development of tribal
businesses or supplemental services. Most significantly, these shortfalls
led the Congress to place a moratorium on contracting for BIA programs for
fiscal year 1999. Although the Congress did not implement a moratorium in
fiscal year 2000, one was contemplated, and remains

likely in the future unless a remedy to these shortfalls is found. To avoid
further moratoriums, we developed alternatives for the Congress to consider
in funding contract support costs. In 2000, the Congress considered an
alternative funding mechanism but did not pass such legislation. Unless this
problem is resolved, we believe the matter will continue to impede tribal
contracting of programs. None of these management issues will be resolved
easily or within a short time frame. Interior will need to continue its
efforts to resolve deficiencies in its management of Indian trust funds and
place a high priority on solving these problems. In addition, in response to
reports from BIA, the National Congress of American Indians, and us, the
Congress has held hearings in the last few years and proposed reform

legislation to address some of these issues. Indian selfdetermination will
stay at the forefront of annual appropriations' debates, as will the long-
term debate over the course of federal Indian policy.

Key Contact Barry T. Hill, Director Natural Resources and Environment (202)
512- 3841 hillb@ gao. gov

Improve To achieve its strategic goal of protecting and preserving
Management of the nation's natural resources, Interior established a
Ecosystem

long- term plan to restore and maintain healthy natural Restoration Efforts
systems. This effort includes the restoration of significant national
ecosystems, such as the Florida Everglades, and the reintroduction of fire
to forested ecosystems such as those located in the western states. The
Department has adopted an ecosystem management approach intended to protect
and maintain healthy ecological systems.

Ecosystem management focuses on ecological, scientific, economic, and social
factors that typically extend beyond the administrative boundaries of the
Department's agencies and other entities. Ecosystem management requires the
collaboration of the

Department and its agencies with each other and other entities, such as
states and private landowners, to develop a common vision for the future
conditions of the lands, waters, habitat and overall ecosystem.

Currently, the Department has several large ecosystem management projects
underway, including the Wildland Fire Management policy; the restoration of
the South

Florida ecosystem, including the Everglades; the Interior Columbia Basin
Ecosystem Management Project; and the Northwest Forest Plan. Since 1995, the
Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture- which manages
the Forest Service- have sought to return fire to the forested ecosystems of
the western states, yet managment problems have hindered this effort. The
accumulation of vegetation, which provides fuels for large, intense,
uncontrollable, and destructive wildfires, remains one of the most extensive
and serious problems in these forests. The danger of increased fuels was
evident in the

Cerro Grande fire of May 2000, when a prescribed burn to reduce fuels got
out of control and burned 48, 000 acres and many homes.

In 2000, the need for fuels reduction was reemphasized after huge wildfires
in the western United States burned 6. 9 million acres, or twice the 10-
year average. Our work has shown that fuel reduction will take several years
and will require the departments to target the efforts of the land
management agencies. The Congress directed the

departments to develop fuel reduction plans in response to the 2000 fire
season. However, neither department has issued a final strategy for
targeting fuel reduction efforts without causing short- term damage to
ecosystems. According to Interior officials, in December 2000, the
departments reported to the Congress their

plans to address excess fuels in high- risk areas and communities.

The Cerro Grande fire highlighted management problems inherent in the
prescribed burns program to restore the forested ecosystems of the West. It
also raised concerns about the readiness of the federal land management
agencies to support and administer prescribed burns. The management problems
involve procedural gaps or a lack of clarity about how policies are to be
implemented. Specifically, the plan for the prescribed burn was not
independently reviewed by someone with technical competence; sufficient
resources for fighting the fire once it got out of control

were not readily available; and more effective coordination and cooperation
between federal agencies and nearby jurisdictions was needed before the burn
got underway. We recommended several changes to the

interagency fire policy developed in 1995, including (1) peer review of fire
plans, (2) better coordination among federal agencies in developing plans,
and (3) documentation and analysis of the decision to proceed with a
prescribed burn. In response to the 2000 fire season, the agencies requested
an additional $1. 6 billion in funding but did not clarify how they planned
to resolve these management problems.

We have also identified potential human capital concerns related to
personnel shortages that could limit the agencies' firefighting abilities in
catastrophic events and recommended the agencies develop a succession plan
to deal with this matter. As with many other federal

agencies, a large number of experienced personnel will retire in the next
few years. Replacements are difficult to find for several reasons, including
the risks of the job and a waning interest of some employees to continue
taking the training required. Developing a cadre of qualified fire
management personnel could take many years, because an individual must
receive 600 to 700

hours of training to become an incident commander. Although the agencies
reported in September 2000 that their priority would be to ensure all
necessary fire suppression efforts are available, these recommendations
depend on budgets received. Interior's human capital problems can be seen as
part of a broader pattern of human capital shortcomings that have eroded
mission capabilities across the federal government. See our High- Risk
Series: An Update (GAO01-

263, January 2001) for a discussion of human capital as a newly designated
governmentwide high risk area.

Management problems could also hinder one of the most significant
environmental restoration initiatives undertaken by the Department- the
restoration of the

South Florida ecosystem. The restoration seeks, over at least 20 years, to
increase the quantity of water and improve the quality of water currently
being drained or polluted in the ecosystem. The restoration initiative also
seeks to increase and restore natural habitats and to

make urban and natural systems more compatible. Because the ecosystem covers
18, 000 square miles and overlaps many jurisdictions, the restoration
requires the joint coordination and collaboration of many entities- federal,
state, and local governments; Indian tribes; and private groups- to ensure
the success of its various ecosystem management efforts. Interior, as chair
of a

multi- agency task force on the restoration, facilitates and coordinates
these multiple efforts. In 1999, we recommended that the task force develop
a strategic plan to identify how the restoration will occur, what resources
will be used, and how the overall restoration

goals link to annual goals and resources. Although the task force
established three goals for the restoration, it did not develop a strategic
plan for how the restoration would be accomplished until July 2000.
Congress, which requested the development of the strategic plan in response
to our recommendations, has also requested that we review the plan. In
addition, the task force has yet to complete other actions to improve the
organizational alignment and control of the restoration initiative.
Specifically, we recommended in 1999 that the Department, as chair of the
task force, develop a conflict resolution process to improve coordination
among those participating in the restoration initiative. In 2000, we also
recommended that the Department and the task force develop a joint

plan to coordinate multiple land acquisitions. We believe that without such
coordination, individual restoration projects and the overall progress of
the restoration could be delayed. For example, a critical project to restore
the South Florida ecosystem, underway since the early 1990s, has yet to be
completed. A major component of the project, which will send more water
through the lower end of Everglades National Park, has

been built and operated under emergency conditions but has not received
final state operating permits because of disagreements over the amount and
quality of water that will be involved. According to Department officials,
the task force has contracted with the Florida Conflict Resolution
Consortium to provide conflict resolution services to the task force. The
task force heard the results of the

Consortium's initial work in November 2000 and is scheduled to take action
to approve a method in

January 2001. The Department and the task force are still considering our
recommendation to coordinate multiple land acquisitions. Until final
decisions are made on these issues, we cannot determine whether the actions
will be sufficient to resolve our concerns.

The ecosystem management approach, which provides a solution to several
management challenges facing the Department, also presents new difficulties.
The approach requires the Department to be involved in efforts that may
entail actions beyond its control and will require continued efforts at
coordination. The Northwest Forest Plan was one of the first broadly scoped,
ecosystem- based plans to be developed and

implemented by the Department's Bureau of Land Management and the Department
of Agriculture's Forest Service. The use of the ecosystem management
approach, coupled with a sense of urgency and strong leadership, enabled the
agencies to resolve planning problems and achieve their goal of removing an
injunction on timber cutting in the Northwest. The application of ecosystem
management principles

has, however, raised organizational alignment and control matters for
Interior. Our work has shown that problems arise when assessments and plans
for largescale ecosystems focus on small- scale issues like limited- range
plant and animal species. Ecosystem assessments and plans should be
conducted for geographic areas that coincide with the issues being

addressed. In reviewing Interior's final Columbia River Basin Plan, which
was released in April 2000, we recommended that the agencies include these
issues in plans for smaller geographic zones.

Increased demand for goods and services on federal lands means that the
Department is likely to experience continuing conflicts and face many
resource deterioration problems. In their attempts to protect and

restore natural resources, the Department and its agencies will likely
continue to apply and refine the concepts of ecosystem management.
Currently, land management laws focus on particular resources.

Legislation to resolve conflicts in long- term planning and resource use,
which would make the sustainability of the ecosystem a management priority,
has been considered but not passed. This matter will continue to influence
the debate over how federal lands should be managed. Key Contact Barry T.
Hill, Director

Natural Resources and Environment (202) 512- 3841 hillb@ gao. gov Address
Challenges

The Department manages about 450 million acres of in Managing An federal
lands for many different purposes, and, as part of Expanding Land its
duties, oversees transactions to exchange, acquire, or Base

dispose of lands in the federal land base. While the sound management of
land transactions is not one of the Department's strategic or performance
goals, the Department continues to encounter several difficulties when
managing these transactions. With the potential for increased federal land
acquisition under new initiatives, such as the Department's Lands Legacy
Initiative, prudent management of federal land transactions will become
increasingly important.

Land Exchanges and The Department is the steward of numerous parks,
Appraisals Have Not

forests, grasslands, wetlands, and other natural areas, Always Ensured

some of which are interspersed with state, local, or Value and Protected
privately owned lands. The National Park Service the Public Interest

manages about 80 million acres of parks, historic sites, monuments, and
preserves. The Bureau of Land Management manages 264 million acres of public
lands

and the subsurface minerals on more than 560 million

acres. The Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for 92 million acres of
refuges and wetlands. To protect and preserve the health of our public lands
and to improve efficiency and remove barriers to resource protection and
management, Department agencies seek to consolidate and protect federal
lands by acquiring, exchanging, or, in some cases, receiving donated lands.
Land exchanges involve the mutually agreeable trading of federal lands for
those owned by corporations,

individuals, or state and local governments. In the last few years,
Interior's Inspector General and we have determined that the land exchanges
completed by the Department's Bureau of Land Management to date have not
ensured the lands being exchanged were appropriately valued or protected the
public interest. In exchanging lands, federal agencies are required under

the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 to determine, among other
things, whether the estimated values of the lands being exchanged were
approximately equal or if the exchange served the public interest. Poor
financial management and controls have prevented the Bureau, and the
Department, from ensuring the equal value of the lands being exchanged. From
1995 through 1997, in several cases documented by the Inspector

General and us, the Bureau of Land Management did not always appropriately
value the land it exchanged because the appraisals used to determine the
land's value were not valid or were not completed in accordance with federal
standards. For example, the Inspector General estimated that the value of
about

5, 000 acres of federal lands in four different exchanges was underestimated
by as much as $24 million. In some cases, the Bureau could not demonstrate
the need for the land it received. Furthermore, under the umbrella of its
exchange authority, the Bureau actually sold federal land, retained the cash
in escrow accounts, and then used the funds to buy nonfederal lands. We
found that the funds were not

tracked in the agency's financial systems and determined that this practice
was not allowed under federal law. Six of the agency's state offices had a
total of $4. 3 million in 20 such escrow accounts at the end of fiscal year
1999.

In 1998, the Bureau formed a team to review proposed exchanges that are of
high value or are considered controversial. Beginning this year, all land
exchange proposals are reviewed by the state director and receive a
technical review by the land exchange team. In addition, the Bureau has
recommended changes to its internal guidance on land exchanges and increased
training of its personnel. However, land exchanges are inherently difficult
to manage because the lands being exchanged have to be of approximately
equal value and because estimates of market value are difficult to
determine, especially when the properties being valued

are unique or when the market is speculative. This inherent difficulty, when
combined with the deficiencies the Inspector General and we found with the
program, led us to recommend that the Congress consider discontinuing the
Bureau's land exchange program. As this has not yet occurred, we believe
this matter warrants continued attention from the Department. The Congress
has recognized the difficulties inherent in land exchanges. In 1998 it
passed

the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act to facilitate sales of
federal land in one of the areas troubled by high land prices and
speculation, and to provide up to 85 percent of the proceeds to acquire
environmentally sensitive lands in southern Nevada. Not only are land
exchanges difficult to manage, but the use of appraisals as a financial or
internal control over the land exchange and acquisition process may be
insufficient to ensure that federal interests are protected, particularly in
cases where the property is a

large, unique tract of land of significant national interest. The
Department, under the President's direction, initiated a program called the
Lands Legacy Initiative to save nationally significant parks, refuges, and
other public lands from encroaching development by purchasing surrounding
tracts of land. However, in our review of one of the Bureau's acquisitions
in 1999, and of two similar acquisitions by the Department of Agriculture's
Forest Service in 1998 and 2000, we found that although the appraisal
process was followed, the assumptions used in the appraisal could have
increased

the value of the property. Problems with the acquisition of lands by other
agencies, such as the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park
Service, indicate that proper management of land transactions is also a
concern for other agencies in the Department. For example, in a 1998 audit,
the

Inspector General found that the Fish and Wildlife Service might have
overpaid for parcels it acquired because of problems with the appraisals of
the land. The Inspector General reported in 1999 that the National Park
Service did not ensure that just compensation was properly established
before purchasing easements in some of its regions.

The pressure for growth and development on lands adjacent to public lands
will continue to increase in the foreseeable future as will the pressure and
cost to the Department of protecting and preserving these resources. A
market approach to managing the acquisition and sale of federal lands, as
was put in place in Nevada, may be better than the approach used in
exchanges, but neither we nor the Department have formally reviewed the
results of the Nevada program. The Congress will continue to be involved and
interested in the matter of federal land acquisitions and exchanges. It
recently passed the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act, which
authorizes the Bureau (and the Forest Service) to sell particular lands

and to use the proceeds to acquire inholdings or lands adjacent to federally
designated areas that contain exceptional resources. The Department will
need to ensure that its organization and processes are in place both to
protect singular pieces of land and to ensure the public's financial
interests.

Expanded Land Base As the Department acquires new lands through Creates
Budgetary

acquisition or exchange, it faces the additional challenge Difficulties of
finding funding for the increasing amount of operations and maintenance
required for the lands and

any facilities on them. For fiscal year 2001, the Department received $1. 6
billion to fund federal and state government land acquisitions, conservation
grants, and historic preservation. The Department is seeking to buy lands in
the New Jersey- New York watershed, in

South Florida, in the Chesapeake watershed, and in the California desert. As
the federal agencies acquire new lands, they incur additional costs for
managing the resources on them. Such management includes conducting resource
surveys and management plans; identifying resource problems that will need
to be treated, such as exotic species infestation; developing appropriate
environmental impact statements to support management of the lands; and
making appropriate improvements on the lands. In some cases, the Department
has not kept the Congress informed of potential operations and

maintenance needs for new lands. For example, in February 2000, we found
that the Fish and Wildlife Service did not report estimated future
operations and

maintenance costs to the Congress when it established refuges, particularly
when these refuges were created from donated lands. We recommended the
Department instruct the Fish and Wildlife Service to provide this

information during budget deliberations. The Service is taking actions to
improve its reporting of costs, but these improvements will not be completed
for 3 to 4

years. According to Department officials, its bureaus cannot yet identify
operation and maintenance costs for all their lands, or the costs that will
be incurred to manage additional lands. However, the officials stated that
the agencies are developing automated systems to track these costs and have
begun to document the increased needs for operations and maintenance on
expanded federal lands. For fiscal year 2001, the Department received $100
million for maintenance of acquired lands.

Key Contact Barry T. Hill, Director Natural Resources and Environment (202)
512- 3841 hillb@ gao. gov

Related GAO Products Managing National

Federal Lands: Agencies Need to Assess the Impact of Parks Personal
Watercraft and Snowmobile Use (GAO/ RCED- 00- 243, September 15, 2000).

Park Service: Need to Address Management Problems That Plague the
Concessions Program (GAO/ T- RCED- 00- 188, May 24, 2000).

Park Service: Agency Is Not Meeting Its Structural Fire Safety
Responsibilities (GAO/ RCED- 00- 154, May 22, 2000). Park Service: Need to
Address Management Problems That Plague the Concessions Program (GAO/ RCED-
00- 70, March 31, 2000).

National Park Service: The Condition of Lodging Facilities Varies Among
Selected Parks (GAO/ RCED- 98- 238, August 6, 1998). National Park Service:
Efforts to Identify and Manage the Maintenance Backlog (GAO/ RCED- 98- 143,
May 14,1998). Park Service: Managing for Results Could Strengthen
Accountability (GAO/ RCED- 97- 125, April 10, 1997).

National Parks: Park Service Needs Better Information to Preserve and
Protect Resources (GAO/ T- RCED- 97- 76, February 27, 1997). Managing Indian
Indian Trust Funds: Improvements Made to Strengthen Trust Management of New
Asset and Accounting System but Responsibilities

Significant Risks Remain (GAO/ AIMD- 00- 259, September 15, 2000).

Indian Trust Funds: Challenges Facing Interior's Implementation of New Trust
Asset and Accounting Management System (GAO/ T- AIMD- 99- 238, July 14,
1999). Indian Self- Determination Act: Shortfalls in Indian Contract Support
Costs Need to Be Addressed (GAO/ RCED- 99- 150, June 30, 1999).

Indian Trust Funds: Interior Lacks Assurance That Trust Improvement Plan
Will Be Effective (GAO/ AIMD- 99- 53, April 28, 1999). Indian Programs:
Tribal Priority Allocations Do Not Target the Neediest Tribes (GAO/ RCED-
98- 181, July 17, 1998). Indian Trust Funds: Status of Department of the
Interior's Plan for Improving Trust Fund Management (GAO/ AIMD- 98- 169R,
May 28, 1998).

Financial Management: Recommendations on Indian Trust Fund Strategic Plan
Proposals (GAO/ AIMD- 98- 37, November 26, 1997).

Preserving and Reducing Wildfire Threats: Funds Should Be Targeted to
Restoring

the Highest Risk Areas (GAO/ T- RCED- 00- 296, Ecosystems

September 13, 2000). Fire Management: Lessons Learned From the Cerro Grand
(Los Alamos) Fire and Actions Needed to Reduce Fire Risks (GAO/ T- RCED- 00-
273, August 14, 2000).

South Florida Ecosystem Restoration: A Land Acquisition Plan Would Help
Identify Lands That Need to Be Acquired (GAO/ RCED- 00- 84, April 5, 2000).

Federal Wildfire Activities: Current Strategy and Issues Needing Attention
(GAO/ RCED- 99- 233, August 13, 1999).

Federal Land Management: Comments on Selected Provisions of S. 1320 A Bill
to Revise Federal Land Management Planning (GAO/ T- RCED- 99- 270, July 22,
1999)

Ecosystem Planning: Northwest Forest and Interior Columbia River Basin Plans
Demonstrate Improvements in Land- Use Planning (GAO/ RCED- 99- 64, May 26,
1999). South Florida Ecosystem Restoration: An Overall Strategic Plan and a
Decision- Making Process Are Needed to Keep the Effort on Track (GAO/ RCED-
99- 121, April 22, 1999).

Western National Forests: A Cohesive Strategy is Needed to Address
Catastrophic Wildfire Threats (GAO/ RCED- 99- 65, April 2, 1999).

Prudently Managing BLM and The Forest Service: Land Exchanges Need to
Federal Resources

Reflect Appropriate Value and Serve the Public Interest in Land (GAO/ RCED-
00- 73, June 22, 2000). Transactions

Federal Land Management: Land Acquisition Issues Related to the Baca Ranch
Appraisal (GAO/ RCED- 00- 76, March 2, 2000). Fish and Wildlife Service:
Agency Needs to Inform Congress of Future Costs Associated with Land
Acquisitions (GAO/ RCED- 00- 52, February 15, 2000). Federal Land
Management: Appraisal of Headwaters Forest Properties (GAO/ RCED- 99- 52,
December 24, 1998).

Federal Land Management: Appraisal of Crown Butte Mines' New World Property
(GAO/ RCED- 98- 209, May 29, 1998).

Performance and Accountability Series

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: A Governmentwide Perspective
(GAO- 01- 241)

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Agriculture
(GAO- 01- 242)

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Commerce (GAO-
01- 243)

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Defense (GAO-
01- 244)

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Education (GAO-
01- 245)

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Energy (GAO-
01- 246)

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Health and
Human Services (GAO- 01- 247)

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Housing and
Urban Development (GAO- 01- 248)

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of the Interior
(GAO- 01- 249)

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Justice (GAO-
01- 250)

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Labor (GAO- 01-
251)

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of State (GAO- 01-
252)

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Transportation
(GAO- 01- 253)

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of the Treasury
(GAO- 01- 254)

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Veterans
Affairs (GAO- 01- 255)

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Agency for International
Development (GAO- 01- 256)

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Environmental Protection
Agency (GAO- 01- 257)

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (GAO- 01- 258)

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(GAO- 01- 259)

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Small Business Administration
(GAO- 01- 260)

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Social Security
Administration (GAO- 01- 261)

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: U. S. Postal Service (GAO-
01- 262)

High- Risk Series: An Update (GAO- 01- 263)

GAO United States General Accounting Office

Page 1 GAO- 01- 249 Interior Challenges

Contents Letter 3 Overview 6 Major Performance and Accountability Issues

12 Related GAO Products

42 Performance and Accountability Series

46

Page 2 GAO- 01- 249 Interior Challenges

Comptroller General of the United States

Page 3 GAO- 01- 249 Interior Challenges United States General Accounting
Office

Washington, D. C. 20548

Page 4 GAO- 01- 249 Interior Challenges

Page 5 GAO- 01- 249 Interior Challenges

Page 6 GAO- 01- 249 Interior Challenges

Overview Page 7 GAO- 01- 249 Interior Challenges

Overview Page 8 GAO- 01- 249 Interior Challenges

Overview Page 9 GAO- 01- 249 Interior Challenges

Overview Page 10 GAO- 01- 249 Interior Challenges

Overview Page 11 GAO- 01- 249 Interior Challenges

Page 12 GAO- 01- 249 Interior Challenges

Major Performance and Accountability Issues Page 13 GAO- 01- 249 Interior
Challenges

Major Performance and Accountability Issues Page 14 GAO- 01- 249 Interior
Challenges

Major Performance and Accountability Issues Page 15 GAO- 01- 249 Interior
Challenges

Major Performance and Accountability Issues Page 16 GAO- 01- 249 Interior
Challenges

Major Performance and Accountability Issues Page 17 GAO- 01- 249 Interior
Challenges

Major Performance and Accountability Issues Page 18 GAO- 01- 249 Interior
Challenges

Major Performance and Accountability Issues Page 19 GAO- 01- 249 Interior
Challenges

Major Performance and Accountability Issues Page 20 GAO- 01- 249 Interior
Challenges

Major Performance and Accountability Issues Page 21 GAO- 01- 249 Interior
Challenges

Major Performance and Accountability Issues Page 22 GAO- 01- 249 Interior
Challenges

Major Performance and Accountability Issues Page 23 GAO- 01- 249 Interior
Challenges

Major Performance and Accountability Issues Page 24 GAO- 01- 249 Interior
Challenges

Major Performance and Accountability Issues Page 25 GAO- 01- 249 Interior
Challenges

Major Performance and Accountability Issues Page 26 GAO- 01- 249 Interior
Challenges

Major Performance and Accountability Issues Page 27 GAO- 01- 249 Interior
Challenges

Major Performance and Accountability Issues Page 28 GAO- 01- 249 Interior
Challenges

Major Performance and Accountability Issues Page 29 GAO- 01- 249 Interior
Challenges

Major Performance and Accountability Issues Page 30 GAO- 01- 249 Interior
Challenges

Major Performance and Accountability Issues Page 31 GAO- 01- 249 Interior
Challenges

Major Performance and Accountability Issues Page 32 GAO- 01- 249 Interior
Challenges

Major Performance and Accountability Issues Page 33 GAO- 01- 249 Interior
Challenges

Major Performance and Accountability Issues Page 34 GAO- 01- 249 Interior
Challenges

Major Performance and Accountability Issues Page 35 GAO- 01- 249 Interior
Challenges

Major Performance and Accountability Issues Page 36 GAO- 01- 249 Interior
Challenges

Major Performance and Accountability Issues Page 37 GAO- 01- 249 Interior
Challenges

Major Performance and Accountability Issues Page 38 GAO- 01- 249 Interior
Challenges

Major Performance and Accountability Issues Page 39 GAO- 01- 249 Interior
Challenges

Major Performance and Accountability Issues Page 40 GAO- 01- 249 Interior
Challenges

Major Performance and Accountability Issues Page 41 GAO- 01- 249 Interior
Challenges

Page 42 GAO- 01- 249 Interior Challenges

Related GAO Products Page 43 GAO- 01- 249 Interior Challenges

Related GAO Products Page 44 GAO- 01- 249 Interior Challenges

Related GAO Products Page 45 GAO- 01- 249 Interior Challenges

Page 46 GAO- 01- 249 Interior Challenges

Performance and Accountability Series

Page 47 GAO- 01- 249 Interior Challenges

Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of reports are
$2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for
100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent.

Orders by mail:

U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U. S. General
Accounting Office Washington, DC

Orders by phone:

(202) 512- 6000 fax: (202) 512- 6061 TDD (202) 512- 2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To
receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30
days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu
will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Orders by Internet:

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, send an e-
mail message with “info” in the body to: info@ www. gao. gov or
visit GAO's World Wide Web home page at: http:// www. gao. gov

To Report Fraud, Waste, or Abuse in Federal Programs

Contact one:

? Web site: http:// www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm ? e- mail:
fraudnet@ gao. gov ? 1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated answering system)

United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548- 0001

Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested Bulk Mail

Postage & Fees Paid GAO Permit No. GI00
*** End of document. ***