    Federal Land Management: Federal Land Transaction Facilitation
    Act Restrictions and Management Weaknesses Limit Future Sales
    and Acquisitions
    (05-FEB-08, GAO-08-196).

    The U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management
    (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service, and
    the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service manage about
    628 million acres of public land, mostly in the 11 western
    states and Alaska. Under the Federal Land Transaction
    Facilitation Act (FLTFA), revenue raised from selling BLM lands
    is available to the agencies, primarily to acquire nonfederal
    land within the boundaries of land they already own--known as
    inholdings, which can create significant land management
    problems. To acquire land, the agencies can nominate parcels
    under state-level interagency agreements or the Secretaries can
    use their discretion to initiate acquisitions. FLTFA expires in
    2010. GAO was asked to determine (1) FLTFA revenue generated,
    (2) challenges to future sales, (3) FLTFA expenditures, and (4)
    challenges to future acquisitions. To address these issues, GAO
    interviewed officials and examined the act, agency guidance, and
    FLTFA sale and acquisition data.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-196
        ACCNO:   A80474
      TITLE:     Federal Land Management: Federal Land Transaction
    Facilitation Act Restrictions and Management Weaknesses Limit
    Future Sales and Acquisitions
         DATE:   02/05/2008
      SUBJECT:   Environmental legislation
                 Federal funds
                 Federal legislation
                 Federal procurement
                 Federal property
                 Funds management
                 Interagency relations
                 Land management
                 Land transfers
                 Program management
                 Public lands
                 Real estate sales
                 Real estate transfers
                 Strategic planning

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO Product.                                                 **
    **                                                              **
    ** 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-08-196

    This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
    Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
    of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
    attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
    the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
    descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
    end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
    but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
    version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
    replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
    your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
    document to Webmaster@gao.gov.

    This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
    protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
    in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
    may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
    copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
    material separately.

    Report to Congressional Requesters:

    United States Government Accountability Office:

    GAO:

    February 2008:

    Federal Land Management:

    Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act Restrictions and Management
    Weaknesses Limit Future Sales and Acquisitions:

    Federal Land Management:

    GAO-08-196:

    GAO Highlights:

    Highlights of GAO-08-196, a report to congressional requesters.

    Why GAO Did This Study:

    The U.S. Department of the Interior�s Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
    Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service, and the U.S.
    Department of Agriculture�s Forest Service manage about 628 million
    acres of public land, mostly in the 11 western states and Alaska. Under
    the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA), revenue raised
    from selling BLM lands is available to the agencies, primarily to
    acquire nonfederal land within the boundaries of land they already
    own�known as inholdings, which can create significant land management
    problems. To acquire land, the agencies can nominate parcels under
    state-level interagency agreements or the Secretaries can use their
    discretion to initiate acquisitions. FLTFA expires in 2010.

    GAO was asked to determine (1) FLTFA revenue generated, (2) challenges
    to future sales, (3) FLTFA expenditures, and (4) challenges to future
    acquisitions. To address these issues, GAO interviewed officials and
    examined the act, agency guidance, and FLTFA sale and acquisition data.

    What GAO Found:

    Since FLTFA was enacted in 2000, through May 2007 BLM has raised $95.7
    million in revenue, mostly from selling about 17,000 acres. About 92
    percent of the revenue raised, or $88 million, has come from land
    transactions in Nevada�1 of the 11 western states. Nevada accounts for
    the lion�s share of the sales because of a rapidly expanding
    population, plentiful BLM land, and experience with federal land sales
    in southern Nevada. Most BLM field offices have not generated sales
    revenue under FLTFA.

    BLM faces several challenges to raising revenue through future FLTFA
    sales. In particular, BLM state and field officials most frequently
    cited the limited availability of knowledgeable realty staff to conduct
    the sales. These staff are often not available because they are working
    on higher priority activities, such as reviewing and approving energy
    rights-of-way. We identified two additional issues hampering land sales
    activity under FLTFA. First, while BLM has identified land for sale in
    its land use plans, it has not made the sale of this land a priority
    during the first 7 years of the program. Furthermore, BLM has not set
    goals for sales or developed a sales implementation strategy. Second,
    GAO found that some of the additional land BLM has identified for sale
    since FLTFA was enacted would not generate revenue for acquisitions
    because the act only allows the deposit of revenue from the sale of
    lands identified for disposal on or before the date of the act.

    The four land management agencies have spent $13.3 million of the $95.7
    million in revenue raised under FLTFA: $10.1 million using the
    Secretaries� discretion to acquire nine parcels of land and $3.2
    million for administrative expenses to prepare land for FLTFA sales.
    The agencies acquired the land between August 2007 and January
    2008�more than 7 years after FLTFA was enacted, and BLM spent the
    administrative funds between 2000 and 2007, primarily for preparing
    FLTFA sales in Nevada. As of October 2007, no land had been purchased
    through the state-level interagency nomination process, which the
    agencies envisioned as the primary mechanism for acquiring land.

    Agencies face several challenges to completing future land acquisitions
    under FLTFA. Most notably, the act requires that the agencies use most
    of the funds to purchase land in the state in which the funds were
    raised; this restriction has had the effect of making little revenue
    available for acquisitions outside of Nevada. Furthermore, progress in
    acquiring priority lands has been hampered by weak agency performance
    in identifying inholdings and setting priorities for acquiring them, as
    required by the act. In addition, GAO found that the agencies have not
    established procedures to track implementation of the act�s requirement
    that at least 80 percent of FLTFA revenue raised in each state be used
    to acquire inholdings in that state or the extent to which BLM is
    complying with agreed-upon fund allocations among the four
    participating agencies. Of the revenue generated by FLTFA sales, the
    agencies have agreed to allocate 60 percent to BLM, 20 percent to the
    Forest Service, and 10 percent each to the Fish and Wildlife Service
    and the Park Service.

    What GAO Recommends:

    If Congress decides to reauthorize FLTFA, GAO recommends that it
    consider including additional lands for sale and greater flexibility
    for acquisitions. GAO also recommends that the agencies take actions to
    better manage the FLTFA program. Interior generally concurred with
    GAO�s findings and recommendations; Agriculture made no comment.

    To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
    [hyperlink, http://www.GAO-08-196]. For more information, contact Robin
    M. Nazzaro at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov.

    [End of section]

    Contents:

    Letter:

    Results in Brief:

    Background:

    BLM Has Raised Most FLTFA Revenue from Land Sales in Nevada:

    BLM Faces Several Challenges to Future Sales under FLTFA:

    Agencies Have Purchased Few Parcels with FLTFA Revenue:

    Agencies Face Challenges in Completing Additional Acquisitions:

    Conclusions:

    Matters for Congressional Consideration:

    Recommendations for Executive Action:

    Agency Comments:

    Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:

    Appendix II: Completed FLTFA Land Sales, through May 2007:

    Appendix III: Detailed Information on Planned FLTFA Land Sales through
    2010, as Reported by BLM State Offices:

    Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of the Interior:

    Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:

    Tables:

    Table 1: BLM Reported FLTFA Cumulative Revenue from Sales by State,
    July 25, 2000, through May 31, 2007:

    Table 2: Number of Sales and Revenue Raised by Competitive, Modified
    Competitive, and Direct Sales under FLTFA, as of May 31, 2007:

    Table 3: BLM Reported Planned FLTFA Sales, through 2010:

    Table 4: Status of FLTFA Land Acquisition Projects Approved under the
    Secretarial Initiative, as of January 23, 2008:

    Table 5: FLTFA Land Acquisition Nominations Reviewed by State-Level
    Interagency Teams, as of May 31, 2007A:

    Table 6: Completion of FLTFA Implementation Agreements and Federal
    Register Notifications by State:

    Table 7: BLM Reported Administrative Expenditures by State,

    July 25, 2000, through July 20, 2007:

    Table 8: FLTFA Administrative Expenditures by Type, as of July 20,
    2007:

    Table 9: Additional Criteria Contained in FLTFA State-Level Agreements
    beyond Those Criteria Established under the Act:

    Table 10: The Seven BLM Field Offices Selected That Have Generated 97
    Percent of FLTFA Revenue, as of May 31, 2007:

    Table 11: The Eleven BLM Field Offices Selected That Had Not Conducted
    a Competitive Sale under FLTFA, as of May 31, 2007:

    Figures:

    Figure 1: LWCF Land Acquisition Appropriations, Fiscal Year 2001
    through Fiscal Year 2006:

    Figure 2: Requirements for Using FLTFA Revenue:

    Figure 3: FLTFA Revenue by Fiscal Year, through May 31, 2007:

    Figure 4: Two BLM Parcels Near Carson City, Nevada, Sold for a Total of
    $24.5 Million:

    Figure 5: BLM "North Fork" 167-Acre Parcel on the Eastern Edge of Las
    Cruces, New Mexico, Planned for Competitive Sale in an April 2008
    Auction:

    Figure 6: A View of the West Mesa BLM Property in Las Cruces, New
    Mexico, That Will Be Added to Land Designated for Disposal in the
    Revised Land Use Plan:

    Figure 7: Part of an Inholding in the BLM La Cienega Area of Critical
    Environmental Concern That Has Been Acquired with FLTFA Funding:

    Figure 8: Photograph and Location of the 80-Acre Pine Creek State Park
    Inholding Approved as an FLTFA-Funded Acquisition at $16 Million:

    Figure 9: The 320-Acre Winter's Ranch FLTFA Acquisition Nomination in
    Nevada, Valued at $29 Million:

    Figure 10: FLTFA Administrative Expenditures, July 25, 2000, through
    July 20, 2007:

    Abbreviations:

    BLM: Bureau of Land Management:

    FLPMA: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976:

    FLTFA: Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act of 2000:

    LWCF: Land and Water Conservation Fund:

    MOU: memorandum of understanding:

    SNPLMA: Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998:

    United States Government Accountability Office: Washington, DC 20548:

    February 5, 2008:

    The Honorable Norman D. Dicks:
    Chairman:
    The Honorable Todd Tiahrt:
    Ranking Member:
    Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: Committee
    on Appropriations:
    House of Representatives:

    The four major federal land management agencies--the U.S. Department of
    the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife
    Service, and National Park Service, and the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture's Forest Service--administer approximately 628 million
    acres, or about 28 percent of the land area in the United States. These
    public lands are mostly in the 11 western states and Alaska, where the
    four agencies manage lands that constitute significant portions of the
    states' acreage, ranging from about 28 percent in Washington state to
    about 81 percent in Nevada. These lands have multiple uses, from
    preserving cultural and natural treasures to accommodating the
    development of resources, such as oil and gas, among other things.
    Historically, many controversies have arisen over the agencies'
    management of these lands, including the selling of federal land and
    the purchasing of private land. In these controversies, the agencies
    have had to balance the need to protect resources in the land they
    manage with the need to respect the rights of private landowners.

    One particularly controversial issue has been managing federal lands
    with inholdings, which are nonfederal lands within the boundaries of
    national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and other designated areas.
    In 2005, the agencies estimated there were at least 70 million acres of
    inholdings within the lands they manage.[Footnote 1] Inholdings can
    create significant management problems for federal agencies in
    maintaining boundaries, providing security, and protecting resources,
    among other things. The federal land management agencies have had the
    authority to acquire inholdings, but have had limited funding for
    exercising this authority.

    Congress enacted the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act of 2000
    (FLTFA), in part, to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of
    federal land management by allowing the four land management agencies
    to acquire inholdings to promote the consolidation of ownership of
    public and private lands in a manner that would allow for better
    overall resource management.[Footnote 2] Revenue generated by the sale
    or exchange of public lands under FLTFA has created another funding
    source available to the four agencies to acquire land when
    appropriations for acquisitions have been declining.[Footnote 3] These
    funds are available to the agencies without further appropriation.

    BLM, which manages approximately 256 million acres of federal land, is
    authorized to sell or exchange land identified in its land use
    plans,[Footnotes 4, 5] the other three land management agencies have
    limited or no sales authority. Therefore, the funds for FLTFA
    acquisitions must come from the revenue generated by BLM sales or
    equalization payments derived from exchanges. BLM may dispose of land
    that meets certain criteria, including land that is difficult to
    manage, no longer needed, or needed for community expansion. Thus, when
    BLM sells land, the sale generates revenue and reduces the burden on
    its land managers to accomplish such tasks as monitoring scattered
    acreage and boundaries.

    Once BLM has sold land, FLTFA directs BLM to deposit the revenue
    generated from these transactions into a special U.S. Treasury account
    created by FLTFA.[Footnote 6] However, the act limits the revenue
    deposited into this account to that generated from sales or exchanges
    of public lands identified for disposal in a land use plan in effect as
    of July 25, 2000--the date of FLTFA's enactment. Money in the new
    account is available to BLM and the other three agencies to purchase
    inholdings, and in some cases, land adjacent to federally designated
    areas and containing exceptional resources.[Footnote 7] The act expires
    in July 2010, and the Administration has proposed revising and
    extending it.

    BLM sells its land in one of three ways: competitive sales; modified
    competitive sales, which provide a preference to existing land users or
    adjoining landowners; and direct sales, which occur in special
    situations, such as when parcels are completely surrounded by one
    landowner and there is no public access. BLM prefers competitive sales
    because these usually generate the most revenue and, therefore, are
    more likely to increase the revenue available under FLTFA for land
    acquisitions. BLM staff in headquarters, its 12 state offices, and 144
    field offices nationwide manage and conduct these sales.[Footnote 8]
    About 300 full-time equivalent staff, out of a workforce of about
    10,500 full- time equivalent staff, are responsible for land and realty
    management in BLM. These staff are directly responsible for land sales
    and acquisitions, along with other realty responsibilities, such as
    processing energy rights-of-way and leasing and permitting on public
    lands.

    The federal land agencies have two methods for identifying land to
    acquire under FLTFA. First, the agencies can nominate parcels through a
    process laid out in state-level implementation agreements that were
    developed under the direction of a national memorandum of understanding
    (MOU) that implemented the program. Under the process, state-level
    interagency teams are to review proposals for land acquisitions and
    forward their nominations to the Secretaries of Agriculture and of the
    Interior for approval. Second, the Secretaries can directly use a
    portion of FLTFA revenue to acquire specific parcels of land at their
    own discretion. The national MOU laid out the expectation that most
    acquisitions would occur through the state-level process.

    FLTFA places several restrictions on using funds from the new U.S.
    Treasury account. Among other things, FLTFA requires that (1) no more
    than 20 percent can be used for BLM's administrative and other
    activities necessary to carry out the land disposal program; (2) of the
    amount not spent on administrative expenses, at least 80 percent of the
    revenue must be expended in the state in which the funds were
    generated; and (3) at least 80 percent of FLTFA revenue required to be
    spent on land acquisitions within a state must be used to acquire
    inholdings (as opposed to adjacent land) within that state. In
    addition, the national MOU sets the allocation of funds from the FLTFA
    account for each agency--60 percent for BLM, 20 percent for the Forest
    Service, and 10 percent each for the Fish and Wildlife Service and the
    Park Service, but the Secretaries may vary from these allocations by
    mutual agreement.

    With FLTFA expiring in July 2010, you asked us to (1) determine the
    extent to which BLM has generated revenue for the FLTFA program, (2)
    identify challenges BLM faces in conducting future sales, (3) determine
    the extent to which agencies have spent funds under FLTFA, and (4)
    identify challenges the agencies face in conducting future
    acquisitions.

    To address these objectives, we reviewed FLTFA, other applicable
    authorities, and agency guidance, and interviewed FLTFA program leads
    at the four agencies' headquarters, officials with Interior's Office of
    the Solicitor, and officials with the Office of the Assistant Secretary
    for Land and Minerals Management on FLTFA implementation. We also
    obtained and analyzed data from BLM's Division of Business Services on
    program revenue and expenditures and visited the Division of Business
    Services accounting officials in Lakewood, Colorado, to discuss the
    management of the FLTFA account.[Footnote] We conducted semistructured
    interviews and collected data from (1) the 10 BLM state officials
    responsible for the FLTFA program in their office on the program's
    status, completed and planned FLTFA land sales and acquisitions, and
    the challenges faced in conducting sales and acquiring land; (2)
    officials at the 7 BLM field offices that have raised 97 percent of the
    FLTFA revenue; and (3) a nongeneralizable sample of 11 of the 137
    remaining BLM district and field offices that had not conducted a
    competitive sale under FLTFA as of May 31, 2007 to determine why such
    sales have generally not occurred and challenges faced to conducting
    future sales. With regard to acquisitions, we reviewed available
    documentation for land acquisition proposals considered by the 10 FLTFA
    interagency teams at the state level, agency headquarters, and the
    Secretaries of Agriculture and of the Interior. During our visits to
    BLM state offices (California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Oregon) and
    field offices (Carson City, Nevada, and Las Cruces, New Mexico), we
    interviewed officials and visited planned land acquisition sites to
    learn about the details of the land acquisition process. A more
    detailed description of our scope and methodology is presented in
    appendix I. We performed our work between November 2006 and February
    2008 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
    standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
    to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
    basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
    We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
    our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

    Results in Brief:

    Since FLTFA was enacted in 2000, BLM has raised $95.7 million in
    revenue, mostly from selling 16,659 acres. As of May 2007, about 92
    percent of the revenue raised, or $88 million, has come from land sales
    in Nevada. Revenue grew slowly during the first years of the program
    and peaked in fiscal year 2006, when a total of $71.1 million was
    generated. BLM's Nevada office accounts for the lion's share of the
    sales because (1) demand for land to develop has been high in rapidly
    expanding population centers such as Las Vegas, (2) BLM has a high
    percentage land in proximity to these centers, and (3) BLM has
    experience selling land under another federal land sales program
    authorized for southern Nevada. More specifically, the Carson City and
    Las Vegas Field Offices generated a total of $86.2 million, or 90
    percent of all revenue generated under FLTFA, mostly through a few
    competitive sales. As of May 31, 2007, BLM offices covering three other
    states--New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington--have raised over $1 million
    each, and the remaining seven BLM state offices--Arizona, California,
    Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming--had each raised less than
    $1 million. Most BLM field offices have not generated revenue under
    FLTFA.

    BLM faces several challenges to raising revenue through future sales
    under FLTFA that BLM managers and we identified. Most frequently, BLM
    state and field officials cited the lack of availability of
    knowledgeable realty staff to conduct the sales as a challenge. These
    staff may not be available because they are working on activities that
    BLM has identified as higher priorities, such as reviewing and
    approving energy rights-of-way. This challenge is followed, in the
    order of frequency cited, by the time, cost, and complexity of the land
    sales process; external factors, such as public opposition to a sale;
    FLTFA program and legal restrictions; and the land use planning
    process. Many of the challenges they raised to conducting sales are not
    unique to FLTFA sales. We identified two additional issues hampering
    land sales activity under FLTFA. First, although BLM has identified
    land for sale in its land use plans, it has not made the sale of these
    lands a priority during the first 7 years of the program. Furthermore,
    BLM has not set goals for FLTFA sales or developed a sales
    implementation strategy. The establishment of goals is an effective
    management tool for measuring and achieving results. While some BLM
    state offices told us they have planned FLTFA sales--96, totaling
    25,404 acres--through 2010, BLM has no overall implementation strategy
    for generating funds to purchase inholdings as mandated by FLTFA.
    Second, although BLM has identified a number of land parcels for
    disposal since the act's passage, revenue from these potential sales
    will not be eligible for deposit into the FLTFA account because the act
    only allows the deposit of revenue from the sale of land identified for
    disposal on or before July 25, 2000, the date of its enactment.

    BLM reports that the four land management agencies have spent $13.3
    million of the $95.7 million in the FLTFA account. They spent $10.1
    million to acquire nine parcels totaling 3,381 acres in seven states--
    Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, and Wyoming.
    In addition, BLM spent $3.2 million for administrative expenses between
    2000 and 2007 to conduct FLTFA-eligible sales, primarily in Nevada. The
    agencies acquired the land between August 2007 and January 2008--more
    than 7 years after FLTFA was enacted. These acquisitions were initiated
    using the Secretaries' discretion, and most had been identified but not
    funded for purchase under another land acquisition program. As of
    October 2007, no land had been purchased through the state-level
    interagency nomination process that was established by the national MOU
    and state agreements. The agencies envisioned these agreements as the
    primary process for acquiring land under FLTFA. Acquisitions have not
    yet occurred under the state-level process because it has taken 6 years
    to complete the interagency agreements needed to implement the program
    and because relatively little revenue is available for acquisitions
    outside of Nevada, owing to the FLTFA requirement that, excluding
    administrative expenses, at least 80 percent of the funds must be spent
    in the state where revenue were raised. Although Nevada has proposed
    five acquisitions, none have been completed. Two of the proposed
    acquisitions approved by the secretaries failed because of differences
    with the owners, one was withdrawn because it did not meet FLTFA
    criteria, one is pending secretarial approval, and one was recently
    approved.

    BLM managers and we identified several challenges to completing future
    land acquisitions under FLTFA. Most frequently, BLM state and field
    officials cited the time, cost, and complexity of the acquisition
    process as a challenge. For example, to complete an acquisition under
    the MOU, four agencies must work together to identify, nominate, and
    rank proposed acquisitions, which must then be approved by the two
    Secretaries. The other most commonly cited challenges officials raised
    were, in order of frequency, (1) identifying a willing seller, (2) the
    availability of knowledgeable staff to conduct acquisitions, (3) the
    lack of funding to purchase land, (4) restrictions imposed by laws and
    regulations, and (5) public opposition to land acquisitions. Some of
    these challenges are likely typical of many federal land acquisitions.
    Officials from the other three agencies had few comments on challenges
    to acquisitions because they have had little experience with the
    program. We also found that the act's restriction on the use of funds
    outside of the state in which they were raised continues to limit
    acquisitions. Specifically, little revenue is available for
    acquisitions outside of Nevada. Furthermore, progress in acquiring
    priority land has been hampered by the agencies' weak performance in
    identifying inholdings and setting priorities for acquiring them, as
    required by the act. In addition, we found that the agencies have not
    established procedures to track key provisions in the act and the
    national MOU. Specifically, the agencies have not established a
    procedure to track the act's requirement that at least 80 percent of
    FLTFA revenue allocated for land acquisitions in each state are used to
    acquire inholdings in that state. In addition, BLM has not established
    a procedure to track agreed-upon fund allocations--60 percent for BLM,
    20 percent for the Forest Service, and 10 percent each for the Fish and
    Wildlife Service and the Park Service in the national MOU. Because the
    agencies have not tracked these amounts, they cannot ensure they are
    fully complying with the act or fully implementing the MOU.

    If Congress decides to reauthorize FLTFA, we raise two matters for
    congressional consideration to better meet the goals of FLTFA. These
    matters relate to making additional land eligible for sales and
    increased flexibility in the use of funds for acquisitions under the
    program. In addition, we are making five recommendations to the
    Secretaries to better manage and oversee the FLTFA program, such as
    developing goals for FLTFA sales and a strategy to implement them. In
    commenting on a draft of this report the Department of the Interior
    generally concurred with our findings and recommendations, stating that
    it will implement all of the recommendations. Their comments are
    presented in appendix IV of this report. In addition, Interior and the
    Department of Agriculture provided technical comments on the draft
    report, which we have incorporated as appropriate.

    Background:

    FLTFA, commonly called the "Baca Act,"[Footnote 10] provides for the
    use of revenue from the sale or exchange of BLM land identified for
    disposal under land use plans in effect as of the date of its
    enactment--July 25, 2000. The act does not apply to land identified for
    disposal after its enactment, such as through a land use plan amendment
    approved after that date. Revenue generated under FLTFA are available
    to the Secretaries of Agriculture and of the Interior for acquiring
    inholdings within certain federally designated areas, or land adjacent
    to those areas and containing exceptional resources, and for
    administrative and other expenses necessary to carry out the land
    disposal program under the FLTFA.

    To implement FLTFA, BLM has designated a program lead realty specialist
    in headquarters, in each state office involved, and in each field
    office within those states. The program lead duties are sometimes split
    between land and realty staff who specialize in sales and others who
    specialize in the acquisition process. In addition, to facilitate the
    use of FLTFA funds for acquisition, the other three agencies sharing in
    the revenue, the Forest Service, the Park Service, and the Fish and
    Wildlife Service, have also designated realty staff to participate in
    interagency groups to decide on acquisitions in each BLM state. BLM
    manages the FLTFA account through its Division of Business Services.

    Federal Land Sales Authorities and Process:

    Although FLTFA authorizes proceeds from eligible land sales and
    exchanges to be used in acquiring land, it does not provide any new
    sales authority. The sales authority, as stated in FLTFA, is provided
    by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). FLPMA
    authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to dispose of certain federal
    lands--through sale and exchange, among other disposal methods--and
    authorizes the Secretaries of Agriculture and of the Interior to
    acquire certain nonfederal lands. FLPMA also authorizes the Secretary
    of Agriculture to exchange land. FLPMA requires the Secretary of the
    Interior to develop land use plans to determine which lands are
    eligible for disposal and acquisition. The level of specificity differs
    in land use plans, from describing general areas to naming specific
    parcels. In developing these land use plans, agencies must work closely
    with federal, state, and local governments and allow for public
    participation. Land use plans are typically revised every 15 to 20
    years to address changing land use conditions in the area covered.

    Sales and acquisitions must comply with requirements of FLPMA and other
    applicable laws, which can require, among other things, an assessment
    of the environmental impacts of the proposed land transaction,
    assessment of natural and cultural resources, preparation of
    appraisals, and public involvement. Furthermore, with regard to land
    sales specifically, FLPMA requires that land be sold at the appraised
    fair market value or higher.

    Although BLM policy states that competitive sales are preferred when a
    number of parties are interested in bidding on a parcel for sale,
    regulations for the FLPMA land sales authority provide for other
    methods of sale when certain criteria are met. The regulations state
    that modified competitive sales may be used to permit the current
    grazing user or adjoining landowner to meet the high bid at the public
    sale. This procedure allows for limited competitive sales to protect
    ongoing uses, to assure compatibility of the possible uses with
    adjacent land, and to avoid dislocating current users. The regulations
    state that a direct sale may be used when the land offered for sale is
    completely surrounded by land in one ownership with no public access,
    when the land is needed by state or local governments or nonprofit
    corporations, or when the land is necessary to protect current equities
    in the land or resolve inadvertent unauthorized use or occupancy of the
    land.

    In completing the steps necessary to purchase land, third-party
    organizations, such as The Nature Conservancy and The Trust for Public
    Land, often provide assistance to the federal government. For example,
    third parties may assist by purchasing desired land for eventual resale
    to the federal government or by negotiating an option with the seller
    to purchase land within a specified period of time, which provides
    additional time for the federal agency to secure necessary funding for
    the purchase or to comply with laws and regulations governing the
    acquisition.

    Federal Land Acquisition Funding:

    The primary source for land acquisition funding for BLM, the Park
    Service, the Forest Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service, has
    traditionally been the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which
    was created to help preserve, develop, and assure access to outdoor
    recreation resources.[Footnote 11] To receive LWCF funding, the
    agencies independently identify and set priorities for land
    acquisitions and then submit their list of priority acquisitions in
    their annual budget request to Congress. LWCF funding is available for
    land acquisition purposes only if appropriated by Congress, unlike the
    funds in the FLTFA account, which are available without further
    appropriation.

    LWCF land acquisition appropriations have been declining in recent
    years. Specifically, funds for the four agencies declined from $453.4
    million appropriated in fiscal year 2001 to $120.1 million appropriated
    in fiscal year 2006, as depicted in figure 1.[Footnote 12] BLM has
    traditionally received the lowest amount of LWCF land acquisition
    funding among the four agencies. For example, in fiscal year 2006,
    BLM's share of total appropriated LWCF land acquisition funding was
    only $8.6 million, or about 7 percent of the total
    appropriation.[Footnote 13] BLM's land sales eligible under FLTFA have
    created another funding source for the four agencies to acquire land.
    FLTFA provides that if all funds in the account are not used by the
    sunset date in 2010, they will become available for appropriation under
    section 3 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act.

    Figure 1: LWCF Land Acquisition Appropriations, Fiscal Year 2001
    through Fiscal Year 2006:

    This figure is a line chart showing LWCF land acquisition
    appropriations between fiscal year 2001 and 2006

    [See PDF for image]

    [End of figure]

    Other Land Sale Laws:

    Other laws allow BLM to retain certain proceeds from federal land sales
    and share them among agencies for land acquisitions, as well as other
    purposes. The most notable of these is the Southern Nevada Public Land
    Management Act of 1998 (SNPLMA).[Footnote 14] SNPLMA's stated purpose
    is to "provide for the orderly disposal of certain federal lands in
    Clark County, Nevada, and to provide for the acquisition of
    environmentally sensitive land in the State of Nevada."[Footnote 15]
    Since enactment, SNPLMA has generated just under $3 billion in revenue.
    As of September 2007, a portion of this revenue has been spent, in
    part, to complete 41 land acquisition projects in Nevada for a total of
    $129.1 million. Unlike FLTFA, SNPLMA has no expiration date and its
    sales receipts are placed in an interest bearing account. However, it
    has fewer acres available for disposal than FLTFA.

    FLTFA Requirements on Use of Revenue and Other Key Provisions:

    FLTFA places a number of requirements on the use of revenue generated
    under the act. Among these requirements, BLM must provide 4 percent of
    sale proceeds to the state in which revenue was raised for education
    and transportation purposes.[Footnote 16] Figure 2 illustrates these
    requirements using an example of $1 million in revenue.

    Figure 2: Requirements for Using FLTFA Revenue:

    This figure is a flowchart showing requirements for using FLTFA
    revenue.

    [See PDF for image]

    Source: GAO analysis of FLTA and BLM's Instruction Memorandum No. 2002-
    205, September 25, 2007.

    Note: With the exception of the amount designated for inholdings, the
    steps depicted in this figure under the 96 percent deposited into the
    FLTFA account are subactivity accounts established in BLM's Federal
    Financial System to record the fund allocations as authorized by FLTFA.

    [End of figure]

    FLTFA also limits land acquisitions to land within and adjacent to
    federally designated areas, such as national parks, national forests,
    and national conservation areas. While most lands managed by the Fish
    and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, and the Park Service are
    federally designated areas, many of the lands managed by BLM are not
    federally designated areas; therefore, acquisitions within undesignated
    lands would not qualify under FLTFA.

    Furthermore, FLTFA requires that the Secretaries establish a procedure
    to identify and set priorities for acquiring inholdings. As part of
    this process, it called for the Secretaries to consider (1) the date
    the inholding was established, (2) the extent to which the acquisition
    would facilitate management efficiency, and (3) other criteria
    identified by the Secretaries. The act also requires a public notice be
    published in the Federal Register detailing the procedures for
    identifying inholdings and setting priorities for them and other
    information about the program.

    Memorandum of Understanding Implements FLTFA:

    To improve FLTFA implementation, the four agencies signed a national
    MOU. Among other things, the MOU established a Land Transaction
    Facilitation Council, which consists of the heads of the four agencies
    and the U.S. Department of the Interior Assistant Secretary for Policy,
    Management, and Budget to oversee the implementation and coordination
    of activities undertaken pursuant to the MOU. The MOU also directed the
    agencies to establish state-level implementation plans that would
    establish roles and responsibilities, procedures for interagency
    coordination, and field-level processes for identifying land
    acquisition recommendations and setting priorities for these
    recommendations.

    Proposed Amendments to FLTFA:

    The Administration has proposed revising and extending the act.
    Specifically, the U.S. Department of the Interior's fiscal year 2007
    and 2008 budgets included proposals to:

    * allow BLM to use updated land use plans to identify areas suitable
    for disposal,

    * allow a portion of receipts to be used by BLM for restoration
    projects,

    * require BLM to return 70 percent of net proceeds from eligible sales
    to the U.S. Treasury, and:

    * cap retention of receipts at $60 million per year.

    In addition, the U.S. Department of the Interior called for Congress to
    extend the FLTFA program to 2018.

    BLM Has Raised Most FLTFA Revenue from Land Sales in Nevada:

    Since FLTFA was enacted in 2000, BLM has raised $95.7 million in
    revenue, mostly by selling 16,659 acres. As of May 2007, about 92
    percent of the revenue raised, or $88 million, has come from land sales
    in Nevada--1 of the 11 western states under FLTFA. Nevada accounts for
    most of the sales because of rapidly expanding population centers
    coupled with a high percentage of BLM land in the state and experience
    selling land under the SNPLMA program. Most BLM field offices have not
    generated revenue under FLTFA.

    BLM Has Raised $95.7 Million from FLTFA Land Sales, Primarily in Two
    Nevada Field Offices:

    Between July 2000 and May 2007, BLM raised $95.7 million in revenue for
    selling 16,659 acres, according to data verified by BLM state offices.
    In addition, the BLM Division of Business Services reports exchange
    equalization payments totaling $3.4 million. Nevada has accounted for
    the great majority of the sales. As of May 2007, about 92 percent of
    the revenue raised, or $88 million, has come from land transactions in
    Nevada. More specifically, the Carson City and Las Vegas field offices
    generated a total of $86.2 million, or 90 percent of all revenue
    generated under FLTFA, mostly through a few competitive sales. For
    example, the Carson City Field Office raised $39.1 million through 3
    sales and Las Vegas Field Office raised $33.6 million through 7 sales.
    Table 1 shows the state-by-state totals of sales revenue generated,
    acres sold, and number of sales. See appendix II for a listing of
    completed sales BLM state offices have reported to us.

    Table 1: BLM Reported FLTFA Cumulative Revenue from Sales by State,
    July 25, 2000, through May 31, 2007:

    State: Arizona;
    Cumulative sales revenue: 54,102; Acres sold: 28;
    Number of sales: 2.

    State: California;
    Cumulative sales revenue: 235,010; Acres sold: 215;
    Number of sales: 10.

    State: Colorado;
    Cumulative sales revenue: 939,856; Acres sold: 243;
    Number of sales: 25.

    State: Idaho;
    Cumulative sales revenue: 180,740; Acres sold: 206;
    Number of sales: 9.

    State: Montana;
    Cumulative sales revenue: 59,000; Acres sold: 53;
    Number of sales: 3.

    State: Nevada;
    Cumulative sales revenue: 88,010,041; Acres sold: 5,399;
    Number of sales: 106.

    State: New Mexico;
    Cumulative sales revenue: 4,052,800; Acres sold: 778;
    Number of sales: 14.

    State: Oregon (includes Washington state); Cumulative sales revenue:
    1,103,485; Acres sold: 8,501;
    Number of sales: 82.

    State: Utah;
    Cumulative sales revenue: 177,000; Acres sold: 26;
    Number of sales: 1.

    State: Wyoming;
    Cumulative sales revenue: 840,085; Acres sold: 1,209;
    Number of sales: 13.

    State: Total;
    Cumulative sales revenue: $95,652,119; Acres sold: 16,659;
    Number of sales: 265.

    Source: GAO analysis of BLM Division of Business Services data verified
    by BLM state offices.

    Notes: Numbers may not add due to rounding. The revenue numbers
    provided in this table are before the 4 percent payment to states has
    been deducted and include only land sale revenue. The Division of
    Business Services reports exchange equalization payments in these
    states totaling about $3.4 million, which are also available for FLTFA
    land acquisitions.

    [End of table]

    Some of BLM's Nevada field offices, particularly Las Vegas and Carson
    City, have been in a unique position to raise the most funds under
    FLTFA to date because of rapidly expanding populations, development in
    those areas, and the availability of nearby BLM land. In addition, BLM
    Nevada staff had previous experience with SNPLMA, the land sales
    program in the Las Vegas area. In fact, the Nevada office used
    procedures and staff from this program to initiate FLTFA's sales and
    acquisition programs. According to Nevada state office officials, BLM's
    annual work plan for lands and realty work specifically directed the
    Nevada office to continue to hold FLTFA and SNPLMA land sales as
    appropriate.

    Revenue from land sales and exchanges under FLTFA grew slowly in the
    first years of the program but picked up in fiscal years 2004 and 2005,
    with $16.6 million and $4.8 million, respectively. Revenue reached a
    peak in fiscal year 2006, when a total of $71.1 million was collected.
    BLM officials said the land sales market in Nevada has cooled since its
    peak in 2006. Figure 3 shows the FLTFA revenue through May 2007.

    Figure 3: FLTFA Revenue by Fiscal Year, through May 31, 2007:

    This figure is a bar chart showing FLTFA revenue by fiscal year,
    through May 31, 2007.

    [See PDF for image]

    Source: GAO analysis of BLM's Division of Business Services data
    verified by BLM state offices.

    Notes: Fiscal year 2007 reflects revenue collected through May 31.
    Since buyers have 180 days to make final payment, some collections are
    for sales that occurred in the prior fiscal year. Because the FLTFA
    account was not established until February 2002, funds collected from
    sales and exchanges in FY 2000 and FY 2001 are included in FY 2002. In
    addition, we aggregated the revenue for each sale as of the most recent
    collection date (e.g., if a particular land sale had collections in
    2003 and 2004, the total amount collected was included in the 2004
    total).

    [End of figure]

    The FLTFA account benefits from the proceeds of all types of
    transactions, including land exchanges and land sales made on a
    competitive, modified competitive, or direct basis. BLM sets the
    appraised fair market value as the sales price for direct sales and as
    the minimum bid price for competitive sales. Of the 265 completed sales
    reported by BLM state offices, 149 were competitive, 33 were modified
    competitive, and 83 were direct. In terms of FLTFA revenue, the great
    majority, about 96 percent, has been raised from competitive sales. For
    example, in December 2005, the Las Vegas Field Office sold a 40-acre
    parcel through a competitive auction for $7.3 million, or 152 percent
    of its appraised fair market value of $4.8 million. On a much smaller
    scale in a December 2006 competitive auction, the Burns District Office
    in Oregon sold 240 acres for $47,000, or 163 percent of its appraised
    fair market value of $28,800. In 2006, the Carson City Field Office
    offered two parcels of about 100 and 106 acres with appraised fair
    market values of $10 million and $6.4 million, respectively, in north
    Douglas County, Nevada, just south of the Carson City limits. The
    former BLM parcels are contiguous and across a major highway from three
    shopping centers. Through competitive auctions, BLM received final
    prices of $16.1 million and $8.4 million, or 161 and 131 percent,
    respectively, of appraised value. Figure 4 shows areas in these two
    parcels.

    Figure 4: Two BLM Parcels Near Carson City, Nevada, Sold for a Total of
    $24.5 Million:

    This figure is a photograph of two BLM parcels near Carson City,
    Nevada, which sold for a total of $24.5 million.

    [See PDF for image]

    Source: BLM Carson City Field Office.

    Notes: In the 106-acre parcel on the left, the area left of the roadway
    was zoned for commercial development. In the 100-acre parcel on the
    right, the land to the right of the roadway was zoned primarily for
    residential development.

    [End of figure]

    According to a GAO analysis of data from BLM's Division of Business
    Services and BLM state offices on land sales revenue collected in the
    FLTFA account, only 12 of 144 field offices have conducted competitive
    sales. An additional 28 field offices have generated FLTFA revenue
    through direct or modified competitive sales. The remaining 104 offices
    have not generated sales revenue for the FLTFA account. Table 2 shows
    FLTFA sales by the method used and the amount of revenue generated.

    Table 2: Number of Sales and Revenue Raised by Competitive, Modified
    Competitive, and Direct Sales under FLTFA, as of May 31, 2007:

    Dollars in millions.

    Competitive;
    Number of sales: 149;
    Revenue collected: $91.4;
    Number of field offices reporting: 12.

    Modified competitive;
    Number of sales: 33;
    Revenue collected: 1.0;
    Number of field offices reporting: 6.

    Direct;
    Number of sales: 83;
    Revenue collected: 3.2;
    Number of field offices reporting: 33.

    Total;
    Number of sales: 265;
    Revenue collected: $95.7;
    Number of field offices reporting: [A].

    Source: GAO analysis of BLM's Division of Business Services data
    verified by BLM state offices.

    Note: Revenue column does not add due to rounding.

    [A] No total reported because each field office may use more than one
    method of sale.

    [End of table]

    Using the data provided by BLM state offices on completed FLTFA sales
    as of May 31, 2007, we determined that the actual sales prices of the
    parcels sold exceeded the appraised fair market value of those parcels
    by 52 percent.

    BLM Faces Several Challenges to Future Sales under FLTFA:

    BLM state and field office officials most frequently cited the
    availability of knowledgeable realty staff to conduct the sales as a
    challenge to raising revenue from FLTFA sales. These staff may not be
    available because they are working on activities that BLM has
    identified as a higher priority, such as reviewing and approving energy
    rights-of-way. We identified two additional issues hampering land sales
    activity under FLTFA. First, while BLM has identified land for sale in
    its land use plans, it has not made the sale of this land a priority
    during the first 7 years of the program. Furthermore, BLM has not set
    goals for FLTFA sales. Goals are an effective management tool for
    measuring and achieving results. Some BLM state offices reported that
    they have planned FLTFA sales through 2010, but BLM has no overall
    implementation strategy to generate funds to purchase inholdings, as
    mandated by FLTFA. Since BLM has not laid out a clear roadmap for FLTFA
    and did not make land sales a priority, it is difficult to determine if
    BLM took full advantage of the opportunities for generating revenue
    under the act. Second, BLM has revised some of its land use plans since
    2000 and identified additional land for disposal. However, revenue from
    these potential sales is not eligible for the FLTFA account because the
    act only applies to land that was identified for disposal in a land use
    plan on or before the date of the act.

    BLM State and Field Officials Most Frequently Cited Availability of
    Knowledgeable Staff as a Challenge to Conducting FLTFA Sales:

    According to BLM state and field officials, they face five challenges
    to raising FLTFA revenue through sales. First, the most frequently
    identified is the availability of knowledgeable realty staff to conduct
    the sales. This challenge is followed, in order of frequency cited, by
    the time, cost, and complexity of the land sales process; external
    factors, such as public opposition to a sale; program and legal
    restrictions; and the land use planning process. Except for FLTFA-
    specific program and legal restrictions, the other challenges that BLM
    state and field offices cited are probably faced in many public land
    sales. The following provides examples of these challenges:

    * The availability of knowledgeable realty staff to conduct the sales.
    BLM staff said realty staff must address higher priority work before
    land sales. For example, Colorado BLM staff said that processing rights-
    of-way for energy pipelines takes a huge amount of realty staff time,
    100 percent in some field offices, and poses one of the top challenges
    to carrying out FLTFA sales in Colorado. In Idaho, staff also cited the
    lack of realty staffing, which is down 40 percent from 10 years ago.
    Adding to the staffing issue, the workload for energy- related uses in
    Idaho, such as approving rights-of-way for transmission lines, has
    doubled. Other offices cited turnover in staff and the lack of staff
    with training and experience to conduct sales.

    * Time, cost, and complexity of the sales process. Much preparation
    must be completed before a property can be sold. For example, several
    offices cited the cost and length of the process that ensures a sale
    complies with environmental laws and regulations. In addition,
    obtaining clearances from experts related to cultural and natural
    resources on a proposed sale can be time-consuming. For example, in the
    sale of 396 acres by the Las Cruces District Office, officials said
    that the sale of the property was delayed by the discovery of a
    significant cultural resource on the site. This was eventually resolved
    by BLM retaining the small portion of the original parcel containing
    the cultural resource.

    * External factors. BLM officials cited such factors such as public
    opposition to a sale, market conditions, or lack of political support
    as challenges. For example, Colorado BLM officials said that they have
    faced strong local opposition to sales, and the El Centro Field Office
    staff in California cited the lack of demand for the land from buyers
    as a challenge. Some offices have experienced diminishing support of
    sales by local governments over the time a sale is prepared.

    * Program and legal restrictions. The Arizona State Office staff and
    the Elko Field Office staff cited the sunset date of FLTFA, less than 3
    years away, as a challenge because the sunset date may not allow enough
    time to complete many more sales. Other offices said the MOU provision
    requiring a portion of the land sale proceeds to be used by the three
    other agencies reduces BLM's incentive to do land sales because BLM
    keeps only 60 percent of the revenue. Another challenge to the disposal
    of land under FLTFA, especially in Nevada, has been the passage of land
    bills for Lincoln and White Pine counties. The Lincoln County Land Act
    of 2000, as amended, directs BLM to deposit most of the proceeds from
    the disposal of not more than 103,328 acres into an account established
    by the act. The White Pine County Conservation, Recreation, and
    Development Act of 2006 directs BLM to deposit most of the proceeds
    from the disposal of not more than 45,000 acres into a similar account.
    In total, BLM staff estimate that, once mandated land use plan
    amendments are completed, the two acts will result in the removal of
    about 148,000 acres from FLTFA eligibility.

    * Land use planning. Some offices cited problems with the land use
    plans. For example, the Idaho Falls District Office staff said that
    specific land for sale is hard to identify in old land use plans.
    Nevada's Elko Field Office staff said that some lands that could be
    offered for sale were not available because they were not designated in
    the land use plan at the time of FLTFA's enactment.

    Most BLM States Have Planned FLTFA Sales through 2010, but BLM Lacks
    National Goals for the Program:

    BLM state offices reported planning FLTFA sales through 2010, but BLM
    has not established national goals for FLTFA or emphasized sales.

    BLM Plans FLTFA Sales through 2010:

    In response to our request to the 10 BLM state offices participating in
    FLTFA, 8 reported planning 96 FLTFA sales totaling 25,406 acres through
    2010. The other two state offices reported no planned sales. Of the 96
    planned sales, 34 are planned as competitive, 6 as modified
    competitive, and 52 as direct sales; the sales methods for 4 sales are
    unknown. The BLM state offices did not report a fair market value for
    some of these planned sales. Table 3 provides information on planned
    FLTFA sales and appendix III provides a complete listing of the planned
    sales that BLM state offices reported.

    Table 3: BLM Reported Planned FLTFA Sales, through 2010:

    BLM state office: Arizona;
    Competitive: 3;
    Direct: 2;
    Modified competitive: 1;
    Undetermined: 2;
    Total planned sales: 8;
    Total acres: 2,640.

    BLM state office: California;
    Competitive: 1;
    Direct: 4;
    Modified competitive: 0;
    Undetermined: 0;
    Total planned sales: 5;
    Total acres: 251.

    BLM state office: Colorado;
    Competitive: 1;
    Direct: 15;
    Modified competitive: 0;
    Undetermined: 1;
    Total planned sales: 17;
    Total acres: 136.

    BLM state office: Idaho;
    Competitive: 2;
    Direct: 13;
    Modified competitive: 1;
    Undetermined: 0;
    Total planned sales: 16;
    Total acres: 4,242.

    BLM state office: Montana;
    Competitive: 0;
    Direct: 0;
    Modified competitive: 0;
    Undetermined: 0;
    Total planned sales: 0;
    Total acres: 0.

    BLM state office: Nevada;
    Competitive: 17;
    Direct: 7;
    Modified competitive: 1;
    Undetermined: 0;
    Total planned sales: 25;
    Total acres: 14,570.

    BLM state office: New Mexico;
    Competitive: 7;
    Direct: 2;
    Modified competitive: 0;
    Undetermined: 0;
    Total planned sales: 9;
    Total acres: 1,273.

    BLM state office: Oregon/Washington; Competitive: 0;
    Direct: 0;
    Modified competitive: 0;
    Undetermined: 0;
    Total planned sales: 0;
    Total acres: 0.

    BLM state office: Utah;
    Competitive: 1;
    Direct: 4;
    Modified competitive: 1;
    Undetermined: 0;
    Total planned sales: 6;
    Total acres: 412.

    BLM state office: Wyoming;
    Competitive: 2;
    Direct: 5;
    Modified competitive: 2;
    Undetermined: 1;
    Total planned sales: 10;
    Total acres: 1,880.

    Total;
    Competitive: 34;
    Direct: 52;
    Modified competitive: 6;
    Undetermined: 4;
    Total planned sales: 96;
    Total acres: 25,406.

    Source: GAO analysis of information reported by BLM state offices.

    Notes: Total acres column does not add due to rounding. An estimate of
    the expected total revenue from these sales was not available because
    all fair market values were not reported by the state offices.

    [End of table]

    Figure 5 shows an example of a planned sale--the "North Fork" parcel to
    be sold competitively in April 2008 by the field office in Las Cruces,
    New Mexico. This 167-acre parcel is on the eastern edge of Las Cruces
    across the street from residential subdivisions. BLM also plans to sell
    a similar adjacent 180-acre parcel at the same time. The field office
    reported that the purpose of these sales is to dispose of land that
    will serve important public objectives, including but not limited to,
    expansion of communities and economic development, which cannot be
    achieved prudently or feasibly on land other than public land.

    Figure 5: BLM "North Fork" 167-Acre Parcel on the Eastern Edge of Las
    Cruces, New Mexico, Planned for Competitive Sale in an April 2008
    Auction:

    This figure is a photo of BLM "North Fork" 167-acre parcel on the
    eastern edge of Las Cruces, New Mexico, planned for competitive sale in
    an April 2008 auction.

    [See PDF for image]

    Source: GAO.

    [End of figure]

    Although BLM offices plan sales, there is no assurance that these sales
    will occur. For fiscal years 2004 and 2005, BLM headquarters compiled a
    list of 100 planned sales under FLTFA from information the state
    offices provided. Because BLM headquarters did not know the status of
    these 100 planned sales, we followed up with the state offices and
    determined that 54 were actually completed. According to BLM's state
    office leads for these sales, 46 properties did not sell for several
    reasons, such as environmental concerns; external factors; the
    availability of staff; and the time, cost, and complexity of the sales.
    For example, Utah State Office officials said a 1,450-acre parcel near
    St. George did not sell because threatened and endangered species and
    cultural resource issues were identified. In Wyoming, state office
    staff said only one of four proposed sales occurred because of
    inadequate staffing and the competing priority to address oil and gas-
    related realty issues.

    BLM Has Not Established Goals or an Implementation Strategy for FLTFA
    Sales:

    BLM has established annual goals for the disposal of land through sales
    or other means.[Footnote 18] For example, BLM's fiscal year 2008 budget
    justification contained a performance target to dispose of 11,500 acres
    and 30,000 acres of land in fiscal years 2007 and 2008, respectively.
    However, BLM has not established similar goals for FLTFA sales. For
    example, BLM's fiscal year 2007 annual work plan for the lands and
    realty function--which guides the activities to be completed in a given
    year--does not contain specific goals for FLTFA. Rather, it states that
    lands and realty staff should continue to hold land sales under FLTFA,
    especially in Nevada.

    BLM did provide an estimate in its fiscal year 2008 budget
    justification for FLTFA revenue--$12 million in fiscal year 2007 and
    $50 million in 2008. However, BLM fell short of its estimate for fiscal
    year 2007; it reported generating only $0.7 million from sales and
    exchanges. Moreover, when we asked BLM headquarters staff for the basis
    of the fiscal year 2007 and 2008 revenue estimates, they said the
    estimates were based on professional judgment and that they had no
    supporting information.[Footnote 19]

    Our interviews with state and field office staff confirmed that there
    are few goals for conducting FLTFA sales. According to 27 of the 28
    state and field office officials we spoke with, BLM headquarters had
    not provided any goals; one state office said headquarters had
    emphasized getting their land disposal program up and running in their
    office. According to 18 of these 28 officials, their state and field
    office management had set no targets or goals for FLTFA land sales. Of
    the 10 that did mention such goals, 8 described the goal as a plan to
    sell specific parcels of land.

    According to headquarters officials, BLM has tried to encourage FLTFA
    sales but is not pressuring field offices to conduct them, and there is
    no ongoing headquarters effort to oversee and manage sales because
    states are responsible for conducting their own sales programs. The
    realty managers explained that headquarters does not approve land sales
    but is aware of them through reviews of Federal Register notices of the
    sales. According to a headquarters official, BLM did not establish
    FLTFA goals because BLM lacked realty staff to conduct land sales and
    other impediments to sales generally, such as the lack of access,
    mineral leases, mining claims, threatened or endangered species
    habitat, floodplains, wetlands, cultural resources, hazardous
    materials, and title problems.

    The establishment of goals is an effective management tool for
    measuring and achieving results. As we have reported in the past on
    management under the Government Performance and Results Act of
    1993,[Footnote 20] leading public sector organizations pursuing results-
    oriented management commonly took the following key steps:

    * defined clear missions and desired outcomes,

    * measured performance to gauge progress, and:

    * used performance information as a basis for decision making.

    BLM has not fully implemented these steps in managing the FLTFA program
    to sell land designated for disposal in its land use plans. To measure
    BLM's success in generating revenue and disposing of land under FLTFA,
    actual performance would need to be compared with national sales goals
    for FLTFA. Without national goals for making these sales a priority, it
    is difficult for BLM to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of
    federal land management as called for in FLTFA through the acquisition
    of inholdings and consolidation of public lands.

    FLTFA's Restriction on Land Available for Sale Reduces Potential
    Revenue:

    FLTFA requires BLM to deposit the proceeds into the special FLTFA
    account from the sale or exchange of public land identified for
    disposal under approved land use plans in effect on the date of its
    enactment.[Footnote 21] Other proceeds from land sales and exchanges
    are typically deposited into the U.S. Treasury's general account. Many
    of BLM's land use plans have been revised or have been proposed for
    revision since FLTFA's enactment, and additional lands have been
    identified for disposal. For example, BLM reported the Boise District
    Office in Idaho is currently planning a sale of 35 parcels. Five of the
    35 parcels, with a total estimated value of $10.7 million, are not
    FLTFA eligible. Because of the land use plan restriction, revenue from
    these five sales would not benefit the FLTFA account when sold. While
    this restriction reduces the potential revenue that could be dedicated
    to purchasing inholdings and adjacent land containing exceptional
    resources under FLTFA, it does benefit the U.S. Treasury's general
    account.

    According to 17 of the 28 BLM state and field realty staff we
    interviewed, their office has land available for disposal that is not
    designated in an FLTFA-eligible land use plan. For example, New Mexico
    state office officials said that a number of land use plan amendments
    completed or under development since FLTFA's enactment have identified
    land for disposal. They noted that the Las Cruces area land use plan is
    being amended to adjust to the new direction of the city's growth that
    has occurred since the last plan was prepared in 1993. According to BLM
    New Mexico staff, different or additional lands are expected to be
    designated for disposal in the amended plan. Figure 6 shows land on the
    west side of Las Cruces, New Mexico, that is expected to be designated
    for disposal in the forthcoming revision to accommodate the community's
    growth. Field office officials said that input from local governments
    and other interests have focused land sales growth in Las Cruces on the
    west side of the city in order to create a buffer for the Organ
    Mountains on the east side.

    Figure 6: A View of the West Mesa BLM Property in Las Cruces, New
    Mexico, That Will Be Added to Land Designated for Disposal in the
    Revised Land Use Plan:

    This figure is a photograph of a view of the West Mesa BLM property in
    Las Cruces, New Mexico. This will be added to land designated for
    disposal in the revised land use plan.

    [See PDF for image]

    Source: GAO.

    [End of figure]

    Agencies Have Purchased Few Parcels with FLTFA Revenue:

    Since the enactment of FLTFA 7 years ago, BLM reports that the four
    land management agencies have spent $13.3 million of the $95.7 million
    in FLTFA revenue--$10.1 million to acquire nine parcels of land and
    $3.2 million in administrative expenses for conducting FLTFA sales.
    Agencies spent the $10.9 million between August 2007 and January 2008
    on the first land acquisitions completed under FLTFA using the
    secretarial discretion provided in the MOU. As of May 31, 2007, the
    agencies reported submitting eight acquisition nominations to state-
    level interagency teams for consideration. The New Mexico interagency
    team reported submitting six additional nominations as of July 1, 2007.
    None of these 14 nominations--valued at $71.9 million--has resulted in
    a completed acquisition. The state-level process has not yet resulted
    in acquisitions because of the time taken to complete interagency
    agreements and limited FLTFA funds available for acquisition outside of
    Nevada. Although Nevada has proposed five acquisitions, none have been
    completed. As for the remaining $3.2 million in expenditures, BLM
    reports spending these funds on administrative activities involved in
    preparing land for sale under FLTFA mostly between 2004 and 2007. BLM
    offices in Nevada spent $2.6 million of this total.

    Under a Secretarial Initiative, BLM Reports Agencies Spent $10.1
    Million on the First Land Acquisitions 7 Years after FLTFA Was Enacted:

    No land acquisitions had occurred during the first 7 years of FLTFA.
    Because the state-level implementation process had not resulted in any
    acquisitions, BLM decided to jump-start the acquisition program and
    conduct purchases under secretarial discretion, as provided for in the
    MOU. In the spring of 2006, BLM headquarters officials solicited
    nominations from the FLTFA leads in each of the other three agencies.
    Most of the nominations agency officials provided were previously
    submitted for funding under LWCF. This secretarial initiative was
    approved by the Secretaries of Agriculture and of the Interior in May
    2007.

    The 2007 secretarial initiative provided $18 million in funding for 13
    land acquisition projects, including 19 parcels of land located in
    seven states--Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Oregon,
    and Wyoming. Specifically, the initiative consisted of 9,049 acres and
    included projects for each agency: six BLM projects for $10.15 million,
    two Fish and Wildlife Service projects for $1.75 million, two Forest
    Service projects for $3.5 million, and three Park Service projects for
    $2.6 million. Only 1 of the 19 parcels is an adjacent land; the rest
    are inholdings.

    Since the initiative was approved, BLM reported a number of changes
    that the agencies made to the original list of land acquisition
    projects. For example, the total number of acres increased to 9,987 in
    a total of eight states. As of January 23, 2008, BLM reported that the
    agencies had wholly or partially completed 8 of the 13 approved
    acquisition projects. Specifically, the agencies spent $10.1 million
    between August 2007 and January 2008 to complete the acquisition of the
    first nine parcels under the secretarial initiative.[Footnote 22] The
    acquisitions include 3,381 acres in seven states--Arizona, California,
    Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, and Wyoming. See table 4 for a
    complete description of the current status of these projects.

    Table 4: Status of FLTFA Land Acquisition Projects Approved under the
    Secretarial Initiative, as of January 23, 2008:

    Agency: BLM;
    State: California;
    Federally designated area: Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard Area of
    Critical Environmental Concern[A]; Acres: 321;
    FLTFA funding: $850,000;
    Status: Complete.

    Agency: BLM;
    State: Colorado;
    Federally designated area: Canyons of the Ancients National Monument;
    Acres: 469;
    FLTFA funding: 500,000;
    Status: Incomplete.

    Agency: BLM;
    State: Idaho;
    Federally designated area: Snake River Area of Critical Environmental
    Concern[B]; Acres: 1,674;
    FLTFA funding: 4,700,000;
    Status: Partially complete[C].

    Agency: BLM;
    State: New Mexico;
    Federally designated area: La Cienega Area of Critical Environmental
    Concern; El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail;
    Acres: 178;
    FLTFA funding: 2,200,000;
    Status: Complete.

    Agency: BLM;
    State: Oregon;
    Federally designated area: Rogue National Wild and Scenic River; Acres:
    32;
    FLTFA funding: 600,000;
    Status: Incomplete.

    Agency: BLM;
    State: Wyoming;
    Federally designated area: North Platte River Special Recreation
    Management Area; California National Historic Trail; Mormon Pioneer
    National Historic Trail; Pony Express National Historic Trail; Oregon
    National Historic Trail; Acres: 277;
    FLTFA funding: 1,300,000;
    Status: Complete.

    Agency: Subtotal;
    State: [Empty];
    Federally designated area: [Empty]; Acres: 2,951;
    FLTFA funding: $10,150,000;
    Status: [Empty].

    Agency: Fish and Wildlife Service; State: Montana;
    Federally designated area: Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge;
    Acres: 2,159;
    FLTFA funding: 1,425,000;
    Status: Complete[D].

    Agency: Fish and Wildlife Service; State: Oregon;
    Federally designated area: Siletz Bay National Wildlife Refuge; Acres:
    42;
    FLTFA funding: 325,000;
    Status: Partially complete[E].

    Subtotal;
    State: [Empty];
    Federally designated area: [Empty]; Acres: 2,201;
    FLTFA funding: $1,750,000;
    Status: [Empty].

    Agency: Forest Service;
    State: Arizona;
    Federally designated area: Tonto National Forest; Acres: 11;
    FLTFA funding: 635,000;
    Status: Agency: Complete.

    Agency: Forest Service;
    State: California;
    Federally designated area: Six Rivers National Forest; Smith River
    National Recreation Area; Goose Creek National Wild and Scenic River;
    Acres: 4,303;
    FLTFA funding: 2,865,000;
    Status: Incomplete.

    Subtotal;
    State: [Empty];
    Federally designated area: [Empty]; Acres: 4,314;
    FLTFA funding: $3,500,000;
    Status: [Empty].

    Agency: Park Service;
    State: Idaho;
    Federally designated area: Nez Perce National Historic Park; Nez Perce
    National Historic Trail; Acres: 510;
    FLTFA funding: 200,000;
    Status: Agency: Incomplete[F].

    Agency: Park Service;
    State: New Mexico;
    Federally designated area: Aztec Ruins National Monument; Acres: 10;
    FLTFA funding: 200,000;
    Status: Agency: Incomplete.

    Agency: Park Service;
    State: Wyoming;
    Federally designated area: Grand Teton National Park; Acres: 1;
    FLTFA funding: 2,200,000;
    Status: Agency Subtotal: Complete.

    Subtotal;
    State: [Empty];
    Federally designated area: [Empty]; Acres: 521;
    FLTFA funding: $2,600,000;
    Status: [Empty].

    Total;
    State: [Empty];
    Federally designated area: [Empty]; Acres: 9,987[G];
    FLTFA funding: $18,000,000;
    Status: [Empty].

    Source: GAO analysis of information provided by BLM headquarters.

    [A] This is the only property in the secretarial initiative that is
    adjacent to federal land; the rest are inholdings.

    [B] Five parcels are included in this project. In addition, BLM has
    added one 300-acre parcel valued at $500,000 to the list of parcels
    under this project. The BLM FLTFA program lead said this parcel was
    included because of its high resource value but added that the agencies
    will remain within the $18 million spending level approved by the
    Secretaries. Of these six parcels, five totaling 1,872 acres will be
    acquired through easement, and one totaling 102 acres will be acquired
    in fee.

    [C] As of January 23, 2008, a 102-acre parcel had been acquired in fee
    and an easement had been acquired on a 300-acre parcel.

    [D] BLM reports that an acquisition at the Arapaho National Wildlife
    Refuge originally included in this secretarial initiative failed due to
    expired options on the property. The Director of the Fish and Wildlife
    Service has substituted an acquisition at the Red Rock Lakes National
    Wildlife Refuge for the same amount of funding.

    [E] Two parcels are included in this project.

    [F] Two parcels, both for easements, are included in this project.

    [G] Some of the acres acquired or planned for acquisition were funded
    in part by sources other than FLTFA: the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund and the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund.

    [End of table]

    Figure 7 shows part of the acquisition site within the La Cienega Area
    of Critical Environmental Concern. According to BLM, it selected this
    site for acquisition because (1) it is an archeologically rich area
    preserving ancient rock art and (2) the riparian cottonwood and willow
    forest that line the Santa Fe River and its La Cienega Creek tributary
    provide critical habitat for threatened and endangered wildlife, such
    as the bald eagle and southwest willow flycatcher. The final purchase
    price was $2.2 million.

    Figure 7: Part of an Inholding in the BLM La Cienega Area of Critical
    Environmental Concern That Has Been Acquired with FLTFA Funding:

    This figure is a photograph of part of an inholding in the BLM La
    Cienega area of critical environmental concern that has been acquired
    with FLTFA funding.

    [See PDF for image]

    Source: GAO.

    [End of figure]

    To fund the acquisitions in the secretarial initiative of $18 million,
    the BLM FLTFA program lead told us that the Secretaries approved the
    use of:

    * $14.5 million of the funds from the 20 percent of revenue available
    for acquisitions outside the state in which they were raised, and:

    * $3.5 million of the revenue not used for administrative activities
    supporting the land sales program.[Footnote 23]

    Agencies Have Submitted Nominations under the State-Level Process, But
    None Have Resulted in a Land Acquisition:

    In addition to the acquisitions in the secretarial initiative, the
    agencies have submitted 14 acquisition nominations valued at $71.1
    million to state-level interagency teams for consideration, but not one
    has resulted in a completed acquisition. Of the $14.1 million in land
    acquisitions awaiting a secretarial decision, $13.7 million, or 97
    percent, is for inholdings and $458,000 million--or 3 percent--is for
    adjacent land. Table 5 shows the data we gathered from BLM state
    offices on the status of the nominations that have been submitted.

    Table 5: FLTFA Land Acquisition Nominations Reviewed by State-Level
    Interagency Teams, as of May 31, 2007 A:

    Agency: BLM;
    State: Arizona;
    Federally designated area: Hells Canyon Wilderness; Inholding or
    adjacent land: Inholding; Acres: 640;
    Requested amount[B]: $3,000,000; State-level interagency decision:
    Approved; If approved, status of secretarial approval, as of November
    30, 2007: Not yet submitted.

    Agency: BLM;
    State: California;
    Federally designated area: Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard Area of
    Critical Environmental Concern; Inholding or adjacent land: Adjacent;
    Acres: 301;
    Requested amount[B]: 458,000[C]; State-level interagency decision:
    Approved; If approved, status of secretarial approval, as of November
    30, 2007: Pending.

    Agency: BLM;
    State: Nevada;
    Federally designated area: Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area;
    Inholding or adjacent land: Inholding;
    Acres: 80;
    Requested amount[B]: 16,015,000; State-level interagency decision:
    Approved; If approved, status of secretarial approval, as of November
    30, 2007: Approved.

    Agency: BLM;
    State: Nevada;
    Federally designated area: Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest;
    Inholding or adjacent land: Adjacent;
    Acres: 320;
    Requested amount[B]: 29,126,000;
    State-level interagency decision: Approved;
    If approved, status of secretarial approval, as of November 30, 2007:
    Withdrawn.

    Agency: BLM;
    State: New Mexico;
    Federally designated area: Gila Lower Box Area of Critical
    Environmental Concern;
    Inholding or adjacent land: Adjacent;
    Acres: 1,880;
    Requested amount[B]: 2,055,000;
    State-level interagency decision: Denied[D];
    If approved, status of secretarial approval, as of November 30, 2007: -
    .

    Agency: BLM;
    State: New Mexico;
    Federally designated area: Continental Divide National Scenic Trail;
    Inholding or adjacent land: Inholding;
    Acres: 5,000;
    Requested amount[B]: 1,530,825;
    State-level interagency decision: Denied[E];
    If approved, status of secretarial approval, as of November 30, 2007: -
    .

    Agency: BLM;
    State: New Mexico;
    Federally designated area: Elk Springs Area of Critical Environmental
    Concern;
    Inholding or adjacent land: Inholding;
    Acres: 2,280;
    Requested amount[B]: 1,810,000;
    State-level interagency decision: Approved;
    If approved, status of secretarial approval, as of November 30, 2007:
    Pending.

    Agency: Forest Service;
    State: Nevada;
    Federally designated area: Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest;
    Inholding or adjacent land: Inholding;
    Acres: 320;
    Requested amount[B]: 1,230,000;
    State-level interagency decision: Approved;
    If approved, status of secretarial approval, as of November 30, 2007:
    Approved[F].

    Agency: Forest Service;
    State: Nevada;
    Federally designated area: Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest;
    Inholding or adjacent land: Inholding;
    Acres: 385;
    Requested amount[B]: 3,530,000;
    State-level interagency decision: Approved;
    If approved, status of secretarial approval, as of November 30, 2007:
    Approved[F].

    Agency: Forest Service;
    State: Nevada;
    Federally designated area: Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest;
    Inholding or adjacent land: Inholding;
    Acres: 40;
    Requested amount[B]: 10,624,500;
    State-level interagency decision: Approved;
    If approved, status of secretarial approval, as of November 30, 2007:
    Pending.

    Agency: Forest Service;
    State: New Mexico;
    Federally designated area: Cibola National Forest;
    Inholding or adjacent land: Inholding; Acres: 160;
    Requested amount[B]: 160,000;
    State-level interagency decision: Denied[G];
    If approved, status of secretarial approval, as of November 30, 2007: -
    .

    Agency: Forest Service;
    State: New Mexico;
    Federally designated area: Santa Fe National Forest;
    Inholding or adjacent land: Inholding;
    Acres: 160;
    Requested amount[B]: 660,000;
    State-level interagency decision: Approved;
    If approved, status of secretarial approval, as of November 30, 2007:
    Pending.

    Agency: Forest Service;
    State: New Mexico;
    Federally designated area: Santa Fe National Forest;
    Inholding or adjacent land: Inholding;
    Acres: 160;
    Requested amount[B]: 560,000;
    State-level interagency decision: Approved;
    If approved, status of secretarial approval, as of November 30, 2007:
    Pending.

    Agency: Forest Service;
    State: Wyoming;
    Federally designated area: Bridger-Teton National Forest;
    Inholding or adjacent land: Adjacent;
    Acres: 40;
    Requested amount[B]: 388,600[H];
    State-level interagency decision: Pending;
    If approved, status of secretarial approval, as of November 30, 2007: -
    .

    Total;
    State: [Empty];
    Federally designated area: [Empty];
    Inholding or adjacent land: [Empty];
    Acres: 11,766;
    Requested amount[B]: $71,147,925;
    State-level interagency decision: [Empty];
    If approved, status of secretarial approval, as of November 30, 2007:
    [Empty].

    Source: GAO analysis of information provided by BLM state offices.

    [A] Although we requested information that had been updated as of May
    31, 2007, the New Mexico interagency team provided information updated
    as of July 1, 2007. To provide the most current information, we are
    including the nominations included in the July 1, 2007 data.

    [B] Requested amount includes the estimated value of the parcel and, in
    some cases, administrative costs associated with the acquisition.

    [C] The total value of this acquisition is estimated at $975,000. BLM
    plans to use LWCF funding to cover the remaining $517,000.

    [D] This nomination was denied because it is not immediately adjacent
    to a federally designated area.

    [E] While BLM nominated this parcel for acquisition, it was denied
    because the state interagency team determined this parcel is an
    inholding within a national forest.

    [F] This acquisition was approved by the Secretaries but was ultimately
    terminated due to negotiating issues with the seller.

    [G] This nomination was denied because it is a lower Forest Service
    priority.

    [H] The total value of this acquisition is estimated at $412,600. The
    Forest Service plans to use other funding sources to cover the
    remaining $24,000.

    [End of table]

    The Nevada interagency team has submitted a total of five nominations
    for secretarial approval under FLTFA. It nominated two Forest Service
    acquisitions--a total of 705 acres valued at $4.76 million--in 2004.
    These were the first nominations submitted for secretarial approval
    under FLTFA. The Forest Service was unable to complete the purchases
    because of negotiating differences with the sellers. Of the remaining
    three Nevada nominations, one valued at $16 million was approved in
    November 2007, one valued at $10.6 million awaits approval, and one
    valued at $29 million has been withdrawn by the Nevada interagency
    team.

    The recently approved Nevada nomination is for the Pine Creek State
    Park, an 80-acre inholding owned by the state of Nevada valued at $16
    million (see fig. 8). BLM currently manages this inholding, which is
    located in BLM's Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area. According
    to the BLM nomination package, BLM would like to acquire this property
    to meet the increasing recreational and educational needs of the park.
    BLM explains that the property has recreational value; cultural
    resources; riparian habitat; and habitat for the desert tortoise,
    currently a threatened and endangered species.

    Figure 8: Photograph and Location of the 80-Acre Pine Creek State Park
    Inholding Approved as an FLTFA-Funded Acquisition at $16 Million:

    This figure is a combination photograph and map showing the location of
    the 80 acre Pine Creek State Park inholding approved as an FLTFA funded
    acquisition at $16 million.

    [See PDF for image]

    Source: BLM photo and GAO adaptation of BLM map.

    Note: The location map identifies the Pine Creek State Park inholding
    within the boundaries of BLM's Red Rock Canyon National Conservation
    Area located near Las Vegas, Nevada.

    [End of figure]

    The nomination that was withdrawn by the Nevada interagency team is the
    320-acre Winter's Ranch property, which is adjacent to the Humbolt-
    Toiyabe National Forest and several other properties acquired by BLM
    under SNPLMA. BLM's FLTFA program lead said the nomination of the
    parcel was withdrawn, in part because it is not adjacent to a federally
    designated area managed by BLM.

    In its nomination to acquire Winter's Ranch, the Carson City Field
    Office said this parcel provides critical habitat for shorebirds, water
    fowl, and other water-dependent species; offers unique recreational
    opportunities for the public; and an undisturbed view for area
    commuters and tourists. According to a Carson City Field Office
    official, three creeks run through this property and irrigate the land,
    making it possible to sustain wildlife habitat, such as raptors and
    migratory birds. The official said that about $20 million of the
    estimated $29 million value of the Winter's Ranch property is for the
    water rights to the property, and that if BLM did not obtain the water
    rights, other parties could acquire them and divert the water resources
    to other areas, such as developing communities near Reno. The Winter's
    Ranch parcel is shown in figure 9.

    Figure 9: The 320-Acre Winter's Ranch FLTFA Acquisition Nomination in
    Nevada, Valued at $29 Million:

    This figure is a photograph of a 320 acre Winter's Ranch FLTFA
    acquisition nomination in Nevada, which is valued at $29 million.

    [See PDF for image]

    Source: GAO.

    [End of figure]

    Over one-half of the state-level interagency teams--Colorado, Idaho,
    Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, and Utah--did not review any land
    acquisitions proposals between July 2000, when FLTFA was enacted, and
    May 2007. Furthermore, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Park
    Service have yet to submit a nomination for review under the state-
    level interagency process. Fish and Wildlife Service and Park Service
    officials based in California said they lacked the FLTFA funding
    necessary to complete an acquisition and would have to wait until
    sufficient revenue were available to allow them to nominate an
    acquisition.

    In examining the headquarters review and approval process, we found
    that the Land Transaction Facilitation Council established in the
    national MOU has never met. The BLM FLTFA program lead explained that,
    as a practical matter, it has not been necessary for this council to
    meet. Rather, in practice, acquisition nominations are forwarded to the
    BLM lead and then routed to his counterparts at the other three
    agencies for review. Additional reviews are then conducted at the
    agency level and, ultimately, at the secretarial level.

    State-Level Process Has Not Yet Resulted in Acquisitions Because of the
    Time Taken to Complete Interagency Agreements and Limited Funds outside
    of Nevada:

    Although the agencies envisioned it as the primary process for
    nominating land for acquisition under FLTFA, the state-level process
    established in the national MOU and state-level interagency agreements
    has yet to result in a completed land acquisition for two primary
    reasons. First, it has taken over 6 years for the four agencies to
    complete all interagency agreements--3 years for the agencies to
    complete a national MOU and an additional 3 years for the agencies to
    complete all state-level implementation agreements. Most agencies
    completed Federal Register notifications of their procedures to
    identify and set priorities for inholdings, as called for in the act,
    soon after state-level agreements were signed. Nevada was the first
    state to complete the implementation agreement in June 2004, and it
    published a Federal Register notice in August 2004. Utah was the last
    state to complete these actions, reaching an agreement in November 2006
    and publishing its Federal Register notice in March 2007. Table 6
    summarizes the completion of implementation agreements and the Federal
    Register publication for each state.

    Table 6: Completion of FLTFA Implementation Agreements and Federal
    Register Notifications by State:

    State: Nevada;
    Date implementation agreement signed: June 2004; Federal Register
    publication date: August 2004.

    State: Montana;
    Date implementation agreement signed: May 2005; Federal Register
    publication date: June 2006.

    State: California;
    Date implementation agreement signed: November 2005; Federal Register
    publication date: March 2006.

    State: Colorado;
    Date implementation agreement signed: January 2006; Federal Register
    publication date: August 2006.

    State: Oregon/Washington;
    Date implementation agreement signed: March 2006; Federal Register
    publication date: May 2006.

    State: Arizona;
    Date implementation agreement signed: May 2006; Federal Register
    publication date: July 2006.

    State: Idaho;
    Date implementation agreement signed: July 2006; Federal Register
    publication date: September 2006.

    State: Wyoming;
    Date implementation agreement signed: July 2006; Federal Register
    publication date: September 2006.

    State: New Mexico;
    Date implementation agreement signed: August 2006; Federal Register
    publication date: September 2006.

    State: Utah;
    Date implementation agreement signed: November 2006; Federal Register
    publication date: March 2007.

    Sources: FLTFA state-level interagency agreements and Federal Register
    notices.

    [End of table]

    BLM officials told us that completion of these agreements was delayed
    for a number of reasons, including attention to other priorities,
    difficulties coordinating the effort with four agencies, and lack of
    urgency due to limited revenue available for acquisitions.

    Second, funds for acquisitions have been limited outside of Nevada.
    Because FLTFA requires that at least 80 percent of funds raised must be
    spent in the state in which they were raised and because 92 percent of
    funds have been raised in Nevada, the majority of funds must be spent
    on acquisitions in Nevada. However, as discussed earlier, no
    acquisitions have yet been completed in Nevada. Additional factors,
    such as the fact that about 92 percent of Nevada is already federally
    owned and that SNPLMA has provided additional resources for land
    acquisitions in Nevada, may have also contributed to the lack of a
    completed acquisition under FLTFA in Nevada.

    Outside of Nevada, agencies have had little money to acquire land.
    Several agency officials, such as BLM state office officials in Utah
    and Oregon, told us that additional revenue needs to be generated under
    FLTFA for land acquisitions to occur. Moreover, Park Service and Forest
    Service officials in California told us they are waiting for adequate
    funding before they begin identifying and nominating acquisitions. The
    Forest Service official explained that the agency could not make
    significant purchases with their share of the FLTFA funds in California
    because of the high cost of real estate.

    BLM Reports Spending $3.2 Million on FLTFA Administrative Activities:

    Between the time FLTFA was enacted and July 20, 2007, BLM reports
    spending $3.2 million on FLTFA administrative expenses to conduct land
    sales under the act. The three other agencies do not have land sale
    expenses under the program. The BLM Nevada offices spent 81 percent of
    the revenue, or $2.6 million. BLM offices in Arizona, California, New
    Mexico, and Oregon each spent over $100,000, and the remaining five
    states spent a combined total of less than $50,000. States with the
    most active sales programs generally spent the most FLTFA revenue. For
    example, Nevada field offices conducted 106 of the 265 total sales
    under FLTFA, or 40 percent of the sales. Table 7 summarizes
    administrative expenditures by state as reported by BLM's Division of
    Business Services.

    Table 7: BLM Reported Administrative Expenditures by State, July 25,
    2000, through July 20, 2007:

    State: Arizona;
    Expenditure amount: $103,636.

    State: California;
    Expenditure amount: 123,119.

    State: Colorado;
    Expenditure amount: 37,173.

    State: Idaho;
    Expenditure amount: 652.

    State: Montana;
    Expenditure amount: 0.

    State: New Mexico;
    Expenditure amount: 171,712.

    State: Nevada;
    Expenditure amount: 2,574,074.

    State: Oregon/Washington;
    Expenditure amount: 145,930.

    State: Utah;
    Expenditure amount: 7,319.

    State: Wyoming;
    Expenditure amount: 4,022.

    State: Other[A];
    Expenditure amount: 4,319.

    State: Total;
    Expenditure amount: $3,171,956.

    Source: GAO analysis of BLM's Division of Business Services data.

    [A] In addition to BLM state and field office expenditures, the
    Division of Business Services spent $2,595 and the BLM headquarters
    office spent $1,724--a total of $4,319.

    [End of table]

    BLM spent little FLTFA revenue on the administrative costs of land
    sales during the first 3 years of the program. According to the BLM
    FLTFA program lead, there was little incentive for BLM to sell its land
    because the MOU was not in place. Spending has generally increased
    since then, with a spike in fiscal year 2006. Figure 10 shows FLTFA
    expenditures from its enactment to July 2007.

    Figure 10: FLTFA Administrative Expenditures, July 25, 2000, through
    July 20, 2007:

    This figure is a bar chart showing FLTFA administrative expenditures
    between July 25, 2000, and July 20, 2007. The X axis represents the
    year, and the Y axis represents the dollars in thousands.

    [See PDF for image]

    Source: GAO analysis of BLM's Division of Business Services data.

    [End of figure]

    BLM's Division of Business Services tracks FLTFA expenditures through
    eight expenditure types. As table 8 shows, BLM offices spent 72 percent
    of FLTFA expenditures --about $2.3 million--on personnel compensation
    and benefits (e.g., staff to conduct sales).

    Table 8: FLTFA Administrative Expenditures by Type, as of July 20,
    2007:

    Expenditure type: Other services[C]; Amount: 829,948;
    Percent of total: 26.

    Expenditure type: Printing and reproduction; Amount: 29,792;
    Percent of total: 1.

    Expenditure type: Supplies and materials; Amount: 18,440;
    Percent of total: 1.

    Expenditure type: Travel and transportation--personnel; Amount: 18,054;
    Percent of total: 1.

    Expenditure type: Transportation of things; Amount: 7,093;
    Percent of total: less than 1.

    Expenditure type: Rent, communications, and utilities; Amount: 292;
    Percent of total: less than 1.

    Expenditure type: Total;
    Amount: $3,171,957;
    Percent of total: [D].

    Source: GAO analysis of BLM's Division of Business Services data.

    [A] Personnel compensation and benefits represent two expenditure
    types. Because they both involve payroll expenditures, we have combined
    them in this table.

    [B] Of this amount, personnel compensation accounted for $1,819,397 and
    personnel benefits accounted for $448,941.

    [C] Other services include expenditures such as appraisals and
    contracts for environmental and cultural activities.

    [D] Due to rounding, the percentages do not add up to 100.

    [End of table]

    Agencies Face Challenges in Completing Additional Acquisitions:

    BLM managers and we identified several challenges in completing
    additional acquisitions before FLTFA expires in 2010. BLM officials
    most commonly cited the time, cost, and complexity of the land
    acquisition process as a challenge to conducting acquisitions under
    FLTFA. We also found that the act's restriction on the use of funds
    outside of the state in which they were raised continues to limit
    acquisitions. Specifically, little revenue is available for
    acquisitions outside of Nevada. Furthermore, progress in acquiring
    priority land has been hampered by the agencies' weak performance in
    identifying inholdings and setting priorities for acquiring them, as
    required by the act. Finally, the agencies have yet to develop
    effective procedures to fully comply with the act and national MOU.

    BLM Officials Most Commonly Cited the Time, Cost, and Complexity of the
    Land Acquisition Process as a Challenge, among Several, to Completing
    Acquisitions:

    BLM state and field officials from the 10 BLM state offices and 18 BLM
    field offices we interviewed most commonly cited the time, cost, and
    complexity of the land acquisition process as a challenge they face in
    completing land acquisitions. The other most commonly cited challenges
    were, in the order of frequency cited, (1) identifying a willing
    seller, (2) the availability of knowledgeable staff to conduct
    acquisitions, (3) the lack of funding to purchase land, (4)
    restrictions imposed by laws and regulations, and (5) public opposition
    to land acquisitions. Some of the challenges BLM state and field
    officials cited are likely typical of many federal land acquisitions.
    Because they have had little experience with FLTFA acquisitions,
    officials from the other three agencies had few comments about
    challenges. The following provides examples of each of these
    challenges:

    * Time, cost, and complexity of the land acquisition process. To
    complete an acquisition under FLTFA, four agencies must work together
    to identify, nominate, and rank proposed acquisitions, which must then
    be approved by the two Secretaries. Officials at two field offices
    estimated the acquisition process takes about 2-1/2 to 3 years. BLM
    officials from the Wyoming State Office and the Las Cruces Field Office
    said that, with this length of time, BLM must either identify a very
    committed seller willing to wait to complete a transaction or obtain
    the assistance of a third party in completing an acquisition. A third
    party could help either by purchasing the land first, holding it, and
    then selling it to the government at a later date, or by negotiating
    with the seller an option to buy the land within a specified period. In
    terms of cost, some offices noted that they did not have the funding
    required to complete all of the work involved to prepare land
    acquisitions. In terms of complexity, a Utah State Office official said
    BLM has more control over the process for submitting land acquisitions
    under LWCF than FLTFA because FLTFA requires four agencies in two
    departments to coordinate their efforts.

    * Identifying a willing seller. Identifying a willing seller can be
    problematic because, among other things, the seller might have higher
    expectations of the property's value. For example, an Ely Field Office
    official explained that, because of currently high real estate values,
    sellers believe they can obtain higher prices from developers than from
    the federal government. Further, an Idaho State Office official said
    that it is difficult to find a seller willing to accept the appraised
    price and wait for the government to complete the purchase.

    Even when land acquisition nominations are approved, they may not
    result in a purchase. For example, in 2004, under FLTFA, two approved
    acquisitions for inholdings within a national forest in Nevada were
    terminated. In one case, property values rose sharply during the
    nomination process and, in an effort to retain some of their land, the
    seller decided to reduce the acres for sale but maintain the price
    expectation. Furthermore, the landowner decided not to grant access
    through the parcel they were retaining to the Forest Service, thus
    eliminating the opportunity to secure access to an inaccessible area of
    the national forest. In the other case, during the course of the
    secretarial approval process, the landowner sold portions of the land
    included in the original transaction to another party, reducing the
    land available for the Forest Service to purchase. According to Forest
    Service officials, in both cases the purchase of the remaining parcels
    would not fulfill the original purpose of the acquisitions due to
    reductions in resource benefits. Therefore, the Forest Service
    terminated both projects. Similarly, the SNPLMA program in Nevada has
    had many terminated land acquisitions. Specifically, of the 116 land
    acquisition projects approved by the Secretary of the Interior from
    enactment in October 1998 through September 2007, 41 have been
    completed, 55 have been terminated, and 20 are pending. This represents
    a 47 percent termination rate. BLM did not report why these
    acquisitions were terminated.

    * Availability of knowledgeable staff to conduct acquisitions. As is
    the case with selling federal land, BLM officials reported that they
    lack knowledgeable realty staff to conduct land acquisitions, as well
    as other BLM or department staff to conduct appraisals, surveys, and
    resource studies. Staff are occupied working on higher priority
    activities, particularly in the energy area.

    * Lack of funding to purchase land. BLM officials in some states said
    they lack adequate funds to acquire land under FLTFA. For example,
    according to a field office official in Burns, Oregon, just one
    acquisition in a nearby conservation area would nearly drain that
    state's FLTFA account.

    * Restrictions imposed by laws and regulations. BLM officials said that
    legal and other restrictions pose a challenge to acquiring land. BLM
    Arizona and Grand Junction, Colorado, officials said that some
    federally designated areas in their jurisdictions were established
    after the date of FLTFA's enactment, making the land within them
    ineligible for acquisition under the act. BLM New Mexico officials said
    that FLTFA's requirement that land be inholdings or adjacent land is
    too limiting and argued that the law generally should allow for the
    acquisition of land that has high resource values. In terms of
    regulations, BLM Carson City Field Office officials told us that the
    requirements they must follow regarding the processing of title,
    survey, and hazardous materials issues pose a challenge to conducting
    acquisitions.

    * Public opposition to land acquisitions. According to BLM officials
    from the Elko and Ely Field Offices in Nevada, the public does not
    support the federal government's acquisition of federal land in their
    areas, arguing that the government already owns a high percentage of
    land and that such acquisitions result in the removal of land from the
    local tax base.

    Compliance with Specific Provisions in FLTFA Continue to Pose
    Challenges to Future Acquisitions:

    FLTFA's restriction on the use of funds outside of the state in which
    they were raised continues to limit acquisitions. Specifically, as
    mentioned earlier, little revenue is available for acquisitions outside
    of Nevada.

    Furthermore, the Secretaries of Agriculture and of the Interior have
    given only minimal attention to developing a procedure specific to
    FLTFA for identifying inholdings and adjacent land and setting
    priorities for acquiring them, as required by the act. According to
    BLM's Assistant Director for Minerals, Realty, and Resource Protection,
    the four agencies met this requirement through their 2003 MOU. The
    official explained that the MOU establishes "a program for
    identification of eligible lands or interests in lands, and a process
    for prioritizing such lands or interests for acquisition." However, we
    found that the MOU only restates the basic statutory language for this
    requirement and states that the Secretaries are to establish a
    mechanism for identifying and setting priorities for acquiring
    inholdings. We found no such mechanism or procedure at the national
    level. While the state-level agreements do establish a process for
    reviewing proposed acquisitions, six minimally elaborate and three do
    not elaborate on the basic FLTFA criteria: the date the inholding was
    established, the extent to which the acquisition will facilitate
    management efficiency,[Footnote 24] and other criteria the Secretaries
    consider appropriate. One exception to this is the Nevada state-level
    agreement. Because the agencies involved in SNPLMA had already
    developed an interagency agreement to implement that act, they modified
    that agreement to include FLTFA. The Nevada agreement is generally more
    detailed than other state agreements and includes more criteria for
    considering land acquisitions because of the differences between the
    SNPLMA and FLTFA land acquisition authorities. Also, unlike the other
    state agreements, the Nevada agreement uses a quantitative system to
    rank acquisitions. Table 9 is a summary of criteria each state-level
    agreement includes beyond the FLTFA criteria for acquisition
    nominations.

    Table 9: Additional Criteria Contained in FLTFA State-Level Agreements
    beyond Those Criteria Established under the Act:

    State agreement: Arizona;
    Criteria: Availability of funding: X; Completeness of nomination
    package: X; Local support: [Empty];
    Agency prioritization: [Empty]; Contributes toward the preservation of
    a specially designated species: [Empty]; Estimated post-acquisition
    management costs: [Empty]; Other: [Empty].

    State agreement: California;
    Criteria: Availability of funding: X; Completeness of nomination
    package: X; Local support: X;
    Agency prioritization: X;
    Contributes toward the preservation of a specially designated species:
    [Empty]; Estimated post-acquisition management costs: [Empty]; Other:
    [Empty].

    State agreement: Colorado;
    Criteria: Availability of funding: X; Completeness of nomination
    package: X; Local support: [Empty];
    Agency prioritization: X;
    Contributes toward the preservation of a specially designated species:
    [Empty]; Estimated post-acquisition management costs: [Empty]; Other:
    [Empty].

    State agreement: Idaho;
    Criteria: Availability of funding: X; Completeness of nomination
    package: X; Local support: X;
    Agency prioritization: X;
    Contributes toward the preservation of a specially designated species:
    [Empty]; Estimated post-acquisition management costs: [Empty]; Other:
    [Empty].

    State agreement: Montana;
    Criteria: Availability of funding: [Empty]; Completeness of nomination
    package: [Empty]; Local support: [Empty];
    Agency prioritization: [Empty]; Contributes toward the preservation of
    a specially designated species: [Empty]; Estimated post-acquisition
    management costs: [Empty]; Other: [Empty].

    State agreement: Nevada;
    Criteria: Availability of funding: [Empty]; Completeness of nomination
    package: [Empty]; Local support: X;
    Agency prioritization: X;
    Contributes toward the preservation of a specially designated species:
    X; Estimated post-acquisition management costs: X; Other: X[A].

    State agreement: New Mexico;
    Criteria: Availability of funding: [Empty]; Completeness of nomination
    package: [Empty]; Local support: [Empty];
    Agency prioritization: [Empty]; Contributes toward the preservation of
    a specially designated species: [Empty]; Estimated post-acquisition
    management costs: [Empty]; Other: [Empty].

    State agreement: Oregon/Washington; Criteria: Availability of funding:
    X; Completeness of nomination package: X; Local support: [Empty];
    Agency prioritization: X;
    Contributes toward the preservation of a specially designated species:
    [Empty]; Estimated post-acquisition management costs: [Empty]; Other:
    [Empty].

    State agreement: Utah;
    Criteria: Availability of funding: X; Completeness of nomination
    package: X; Local support: [Empty];
    Agency prioritization: X;
    Contributes toward the preservation of a specially designated species:
    [Empty]; Estimated post-acquisition management costs: [Empty]; Other:
    [Empty].

    State agreement: Wyoming;
    Criteria: Availability of funding: X; Completeness of nomination
    package: X; Local support: [Empty];
    Agency prioritization: X;
    Contributes toward the preservation of a specially designated species:
    [Empty]; Estimated post-acquisition management costs: [Empty]; Other:
    [Empty].

    Source: FLTFA state-level implementation agreements.

    [A] Three additional criteria are included in the Nevada state-level
    implementation agreement: (1) preserves a significant natural,
    aesthetic or scientific feature; (2) preserves significant historic,
    paleontological, or cultural site; and (3) enhances recreational
    opportunities or improves public access to recreational opportunities.

    [End of table]

    When the agencies decided in 2006 to use the Secretaries' discretionary
    authority to make the initial FLTFA acquisitions, officials from all
    four agencies told us they generally relied on acquisition proposals
    previously identified for LWCF funding to quickly identify the parcels
    to acquire.[Footnote 25] The agencies have systems to identify and set
    priorities for land acquisitions under LWCF. These existing systems
    could serve as a basis for systematically identifying and ranking FLTFA-
    eligible land for future acquisitions.

    The Agencies Have Yet to Establish Effective Procedures to Fully Comply
    with FLTFA and MOU Provisions:

    With respect to FLTFA, the agencies--and primarily BLM, as the manager
    of the FLTFA account--have not established a procedure to track the
    act's requirement that at least 80 percent of funds allocated toward
    the purchase of land within each state must be used to purchase
    inholdings and that up to 20 percent may be used to purchase adjacent
    land.[Footnote 26] The BLM FLTFA program lead said BLM considers this
    requirement when making land acquisition decisions but has not
    established a system to track it. The program lead noted that the
    requirement to use 80 percent for inholdings is hard to track, as the
    act is written, because the acquisition proposals are submitted in a
    piecemeal fashion.

    With respect to the national MOU, BLM has not established a procedure
    to track agreed-upon fund allocations--60 percent for BLM, 20 percent
    for the Forest Service, and 10 percent each for the Fish and Wildlife
    Service and the Park Service.[Footnote 27] The BLM FLTFA program lead
    told us the MOU allocations should be treated as a target or a goal on
    a national basis and they do not apply within a state. However,
    officials from the BLM Division of Business Services and BLM's Budget
    Office told us there is no mechanism to track these allocations and
    were unable to tell us whether the allocations should be followed at
    the state or national level. Knowing whether the MOU fund allocations
    are set at the state or national level is important because allocations
    that apply nationally provide more flexibility than allocations at the
    state level. While BLM did not track the allocations, most state-level
    interagency agreements provide guidance on consideration of nominations
    that exceed the established allocations and some BLM state office
    officials we spoke with were mindful of these allocation targets. For
    example, in California, the interagency team had agreed to "lend" BLM
    the funds from their allocations for a proposed BLM acquisition because
    they themselves could not effectively use the small portions of funding
    allocated to them. In contrast, in Oregon, BLM officials said they had
    not considered such an arrangement. The BLM FLTFA program lead said the
    funding decisions made by the Secretaries will be tracked and further
    information will be provided to the state-level interagency teams to
    clear up any misunderstanding of the requirement.[Footnote 28]

    Conclusions:

    Congress anticipated that FLTFA would increase the efficiency and
    effectiveness of federal land management by allowing the four agencies
    to use certain land sales revenue without further appropriation to
    acquire priority land. Seven years later, BLM has not taken full
    advantage of the opportunity FLTFA offered. BLM has raised most of the
    funds for the FLTFA account with land sales in just one state, and it
    and the other land management agencies have made limited progress in
    acquiring inholdings and adjacent land with exceptional resources.
    Because there are less than 3 years remaining until FLTFA expires and a
    significant amount of time is needed to complete both sales and
    acquisitions, relatively little time remains to improve the
    implementation of FLTFA.

    We recognize that a number of challenges have prevented BLM from
    completing many sales in most states, which limits the number of
    possible acquisitions. Many of the challenges that BLM cited are likely
    faced in many public land sales, as FLTFA did not change the land sales
    process. However, we believe that BLM's failure to set goals for FLTFA
    sales and develop a sales implementation strategy limits the agency's
    ability to raise revenue for acquisitions. Without goals and a strategy
    to achieve them, BLM field offices do not have direction for FLTFA
    sales. Moreover, the lack of goals makes it difficult to determine the
    extent of BLM's progress in disposing of unneeded lands to raise funds
    for acquisitions.

    As with sales, progress in acquiring priority land has been hampered by
    weak agency performance in developing an effective mechanism to
    identify potential land acquisitions and set priorities for inholdings
    and adjacent land with exceptional resources, which FLTFA requires.
    Without such a mechanism, it is difficult to assess whether the
    agencies are acquiring the most significant inholdings and, thus,
    enabling them to more effectively and efficiently manage federal lands.
    Although the agencies do have systems to identify and set priorities
    for land acquisitions under LWCF that could potentially be adapted for
    the FLTFA acquisitions as well, they have not done so. Moreover,
    because the agencies have not tracked the amounts spent on inholdings
    and agency allocations, they cannot ensure compliance with the act or
    full implementation of the MOU.

    As Congress considers the Administration's proposal to amend and
    reauthorize FLTFA, it may wish to reconsider the act's requirements
    that eligible lands are only those designated in the land use plans at
    the time FLTFA was enacted and that most FLTFA revenue raised must be
    spent in that state. Adjusting the eligibility of land use plans, as
    the Administration has proposed, could provide additional resources for
    land acquisitions under FLTFA. In addition, providing the agencies with
    more flexibility over the use of funds may allow them to acquire the
    most desirable land nationwide.

    Matters for Congressional Consideration:

    If Congress decides to reauthorize FLTFA in 2010, it may wish to
    consider revising the following provisions to better achieve the goals
    of the act:

    * FLTFA limits eligible land sales to those lands identified in land
    use plans in effect as of July 25, 2000. This provision excludes more
    recently identified land available for disposal, thereby reducing
    opportunities for raising additional revenue for land acquisition.

    * The requirement that agencies spend the majority of funds raised from
    eligible sales for acquisitions in the same state. This provision makes
    it difficult for agencies to acquire more desirable land in states that
    have generated little revenue.

    Recommendations for Executive Action:

    We are making five recommendations.

    To improve the implementation of the FLTFA mandate to raise funds to
    purchase inholdings, we recommend that the Secretary of the Interior
    direct the Director of BLM to:

    * develop goals for land sales, and:

    * develop a strategy for implementing these goals during the last 3
    years of the program.

    To enhance the departments' compliance with the act, we recommend that
    the Secretaries of Agriculture and of the Interior improve the
    procedure in place to identify and set priorities for acquiring
    inholdings.

    To enhance the departments' compliance with the act, we recommend that
    the Secretary of the Interior direct the Director of BLM to establish a
    procedure to track the percentage of revenue spent on inholdings and on
    adjacent land.

    To fully implement the National Memorandum of Understanding, we
    recommend that the Secretaries of Agriculture and of the Interior
    establish a procedure to track the fund allocations for land
    acquisitions by agency as provided in the MOU.

    Agency Comments:

    The Department of the Interior provided written comments on a draft of
    this report. The department generally concurred with our report's
    findings and recommendations, stating that it will implement all of the
    recommendations. These comments are presented in appendix IV of this
    report. In addition, Interior and the Department of Agriculture
    provided technical comments on the draft report, which we have
    incorporated as appropriate.

    We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of the Interior;
    the Secretary of Agriculture; the Directors of BLM, the Park Service,
    and the Fish and Wildlife Service; and the Chief of the Forest Service;
    and other interested parties. We will also make copies available to
    others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no
    charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].

    If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact
    me at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. Contact points for our
    Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
    the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are
    listed in appendix V.

    Signed by:

    Robin M. Nazzaro:

    Director, Natural Resources and Environment:

    [End of section]

    Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:

    With the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act of 2000 (FLTFA) set
    to expire in July 2010, we were asked to (1) determine the extent to
    which the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has generated revenue for the
    FLTFA program, (2) identify challenges BLM faces in conducting future
    sales, (3) determine the extent to which the agencies have spent funds
    under FLTFA, and (4) identify challenges the agencies face in
    conducting future acquisitions. We also assessed the reliability of
    data BLM provided on revenue generated and on expenditures to date
    under FLTFA.

    For all four objectives, we reviewed FLTFA, other applicable laws,
    regulations, and agency guidance. We interviewed the FLTFA program
    leads at the headquarters offices for BLM, the Fish and Wildlife
    Service, and the Park Service within the U.S. Department of the
    Interior, and the Forest Service within the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture on program status, goals, and management oversight for the
    program. To understand BLM�s interpretation of key provisions of the
    act, we interviewed officials with Interior�s Office of the Assistant
    Secretary for Land and Minerals Management and Office of the Solicitor
    and, in some cases, requested the department�s views on these
    provisions in writing.

    To determine the extent to which BLM has generated and expended FLTFA
    program revenue, we obtained and analyzed data from BLM�s Division of
    Business Services on program revenue and visited Division of Business
    Services accounting officials in Lakewood, Colorado, to discuss the
    management of the FLTFA account. Using information provided by the
    Division of Business Services and information we obtained from the
    Federal Register, we prepared summary information on completed sales by
    state and asked the 10 BLM state office officials responsible for the
    FLTFA program in their state to verify and update that information. As
    part of the request to state offices, we obtained data on planned FLTFA
    land sales and completed and planned acquisitions through 2010. We
    subjected the data provided by the field offices to electronic and
    logic testing and followed up with the field contacts regarding
    questions. With regard to acquisitions, we reviewed available
    documentation for land acquisition proposals considered by the 10 FLTFA
    interagency teams at the state level, agency headquarters, and the
    Secretaries of Agriculture and of the Interior. During our visits to
    selected BLM state offices (California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Oregon)
    and field offices (Carson City, Nevada, and Las Cruces, New Mexico), we
    interviewed officials and visited planned land acquisition sites to
    learn about the land acquisition process. During these visits we also
    interviewed selected officials with the Fish and Wildlife Service, the
    Forest Service, and the Park Service to learn about their experience in
    drafting state-level interagency agreements and with implementing land
    acquisitions under FLTFA. To assess the reliability of data provided by
    the Division of Business Services on revenue and expenditures, we
    interviewed staff responsible for compiling and reporting the data at
    the Division of Business Services and at the state office and field
    locations visited. We examined reports of this data from BLM�s
    financial systems and related guidance and sought documentation on
    selected entries into the system.

    To determine whether BLM has sufficient internal controls over FLTFA
    receipts and expenditures, we interviewed officials at the bureau�s
    Division of Business Services and obtained, reviewed, and assessed the
    system of internal controls for the U.S. Treasury account established
    under FLTFA, including management�s written policies and procedures, as
    well as control activities over collections, expenditures, and the
    records for these transactions. We also reviewed documentation for a
    nonprobability sample of 7 nonlabor FLTFA expenditures totaling $54,967
    that were charged by the Las Cruces Field Office to ensure proper
    documentation. As of July 20, 2007, BLM offices had made a total of
    15,706 expenditure transactions�858 nonlabor and 14,848
    labor�nationwide. The seven we chose included expenditures for
    appraisals and cultural evaluations on properties being prepared for
    sale under FLTFA. We chose these transactions because they were the
    largest ones and included a single vendor. We also chose one
    expenditure made on a charge card because it was slightly less than a
    reporting limit. We checked to ensure that documentation for these
    expenditures included (1) an agreement or contract between BLM and the
    entity to have specific work completed, (2) an invoice detailing work
    performed, and (3) evidence of BLM supervisory approval to pay for such
    services. After our review of the internal control policies and
    procedures, testing and verification of data on revenue, and obtaining
    documentation of the selected expenditures, the revenue and expenditure
    data was considered sufficiently reliable for our report.

    To identify challenges to conducting land sales and acquisitions, we
    reviewed the FLTFA national memorandum of understanding, state-level
    interagency agreements, and documentation of headquarters and
    statelevel interagency team activities to learn about the policies and
    procedures established for the implementation of FLTFA. We conducted
    semistructured interviews using a web-based protocol with (1) the 10
    BLM state officials responsible for the FLTFA program in their
    state�Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New
    Mexico, Oregon/Washington, Utah, and Wyoming; (2) officials at the
    seven BLM field offices that have raised 97 percent of the FLTFA
    revenue (as shown in table 10); and (3) a nongeneralizable sample of 11
    of the 137 remaining BLM field offices that had not conducted a
    competitive sale under FLTFA as of May 31, 2007 (as shown in table 11).
    From the field offices with no competitive sales, we choose at least
    one office from each of the ten state offices under FLTFA and we
    considered the proximity of lands managed by field offices to urban
    areas. For California, we selected two additional field offices�Palm
    Springs and Eagle Lake. We chose the Palm Springs Field Office because
    it planned a major sale during our review and we chose the Eagle Lake
    Field Office because, although it is located in California, it manages
    some land in Nevada and has had no competitive sales. Because all of
    the Nevada field offices have had competitive sales and four Nevada
    offices were among the high revenue offices selected, we decided to
    select the Eagle Lake office. To analyze the narrative responses to
    some of the semistructured interview questions, we used the web-based
    system to perform content analyses of select open-ended responses. To
    conduct the content analyses to develop statistics on agreement among
    the answers, two reviewers per question collaborated on developing
    content categories based on survey responses and independently assessed
    and coded each survey response into those categories. Intercoder
    reliability (agreement) statistics were electronically generated in the
    coding process, and agreement on all categories were 90 percent or
    above. Coding disagreements were resolved through reviewer discussion.
    In addition, analyses of the closed-ended responses were produced with
    statistical software.

    Table 10: The Seven BLM Field Offices Selected That Have Generated 97
    Percent of FLTFA Revenue, as of May 31, 2007:

    State: Nevada;
    BLM office: Carson City Field Office;

    State: Nevada;
    BLM office: Elko Field Office;

    State: Nevada;
    BLM office: Ely Field Office;

    State: Nevada;
    BLM office: Las Vegas Field Office;

    State: New Mexico;
    BLM office: Las Cruces District Office;

    State: Oregon;
    BLM office: Bruns District Office;

    State: Wyoming;
    BLM office: Rock Springs Field Office.

    Source: GAO analysis of BLM Division of Business Services revenue data.

    [End of figure]

    Table: The Eleven BLM Field Offices Selected That Had Not Conducted a
    Competetive Sale under FLTFA, as of May 31, 2007:

    State: Arizona;
    BLM Office: Lower Sonoran Field Office;

    State: California;
    BLM Office: Eagle Lake Field Office;

    State: California;
    BLM Office: El Entro Field Office;

    State: California;
    BLM Office: Palm Springs Field Office;

    State: Colorado;
    BLM Office: Grand Junction Field Office;

    State: Idaho;
    BLM Office: Idaho Falls District Office;

    State: Montana;
    BLM Office: Lewistown Field Office;

    State: New Mexico;
    BLM Office: Farmington Field Office;

    State: Oregon;
    BLM Office: Medford District Office;

    State: Utah;
    BLM Office: St. George Field Office;

    State: Wyoming;
    BLM Office: Casper Field Office.

    Source: GAO analysis of BLM Division of Business Services revenue data
    and other factors.

    [End of figure]

    We also interviewed a range of officials about the land acquisition
    process. These officials included FLTFA program leads at each agency�s
    headquarters and selected state or regional-level contacts with each
    agency, as well as officials from third-party organizations involved
    with the land acquisition process, such as The Nature Conservancy and
    The Trust for Public Land.

    We performed our work between November 2006 and February 2008 in
    accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
    standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
    sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
    findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
    the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
    conclusions based on our audit objectives.

    [End of section]

    Appendix II: Completed FLTFA Land Sales, through May 2007:

    [See PDF for image]

    Source: GAO analysis of information from BLM Division of Business
    Services and state offices.

    [A] Information not provided.

    [End of figure]

    [End of section]

    Appendix III: Detailed Information on Planned FLTFA Land Sales through
    2010, as Reported by BLM State Offices:

    [See PDF for image]

    Source: GAO analysis of information from BLM's state offices.

    [End of table]

    [End of section]

    Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of the Interior:

    The Associate Deputy Secretary Of The Interior:
    Washington:

    January 25, 2008:

    Ms. Robin Nazzaro:
    Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
    Government Accountability Office:
    441 G Street, NW.:
    Washington, DC 20548:

    Dear Ms. Nazzaro:

    Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government
    Accountability Office (GAO) draft report entitled, "Federal Land
    Management�Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act Restrictions and
    Management Weaknesses Limit Future Sales and Acquisitions," (GAO-08-
    196). General and specific comments are provided below.

    General Comments:

    The Department of the Interior generally concurs with your findings and
    recommendations for executive action, as well as recommendations for
    the Congress to consider revising the Federal Land Transaction
    Facilitation Act of 2000, Title II of Public Law No. 106-248. The DOI
    supports reauthorizing the FLTFA along the lines discussed in the
    report and removing the 2010 sunset.

    The FLTFA facilitates acquisition of non-Federal land by making
    available proceeds from the sale of Bureau of Land Management-managed
    public land identified for disposal in land use plans adopted before
    enactment of the FLTFA in July 2000. The FLTFA's land acquisition
    provisions apply to the BLM, National Park Service, and U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service in the DOI, and the U.S. Forest Service in the
    Department of Agriculture. In 2003, the Assistant Secretary-Policy,
    Management and Budget of the DOI, the BLM, NPS, FWS, and USFS entered
    into a Memorandum of Understanding to improve the implementation of the
    FLTFA by coordinating the roles and responsibilities of the signing
    agencies. The BLM, as lead agency, in coordination with the
    headquarters staff of the other participating agencies, provides
    guidance through program management and oversight, policy, and
    training. Using funds generated by FLTFA-eligible land sales, the
    Federal Government has acquired land that is meeting a wide range of
    resource management goals. The FLTFA has funded acquisitions for all
    four participating land management agencies. As of December 27, 2007,
    participating agencies have spent $9,446,000 and acquired nine parcels
    totaling 3,382 acres. An example of land acquired with FLTFA funds is
    the BLM's acquisition of 321 acres in southern California to be managed
    as part of the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard Area of Critical
    Environmental Concern. This acreage provides key wildlife habitat and
    maintains a biological corridor linking the Coachella Valley Fringe-
    Toed Lizard Preserve, which contains both the BLM-managed ACEC and the
    Coachella Valley National Wildlife Refuge managed by the FWS and the
    Joshua Tree National Park managed by the NPS. This acquisition, which
    was facilitated by Friends of the Desert Mountains, also protects the
    fluvial sand transport system and hydrological regime essential for
    sustaining the dune communities of listed species in the Preserve.

    In addition, $34,015,000 has been approved and allocated to the
    respective agencies to acquire multiple parcels; these transactions are
    pending completion. For example, the USFS will complete acquisition of
    the 4,303-acre Six Rivers National Forest parcel, valued at $2,865,000,
    in January 2008. This parcel will complete the third of a three-phase
    purchase facilitated by Western Rivers Conservancy, within the heart of
    the Goose Creek National Wild and Scenic River (a tributary of the
    Smith River�California's only undammed river system). This acquisition
    will secure in perpetuity critical habitat for multiple Federally-
    listed species, including California's healthiest wild runs of Chinook
    and Coho salmon.

    Response To Recommendations:

    Recommendation 1: Directed to the BLM, this recommendation includes the
    suggestion that the BLM develop goals for land sales and develop a
    strategy to implement these goals in the remaining three years of the
    program.

    Response: The BLM will establish goals to offer FLTFA-eligible property
    for sale. The BLM will identify areas where market conditions create an
    opportunity to prepare and offer public land for sale; for example,
    areas with rapidly appreciating land values.

    Conclusion: The BLM is implementing this recommendation.

    Recommendation 2: Directed to both the DOI and the USDA, this
    recommendation is to improve procedures in place to identify and set
    priorities for acquiring inholdings.

    Response: The MOU signed in 2003 by all participating FLTFA agencies
    and the subsequent State-specific interagency implementation agreements
    establish procedures to identify and prioritize land for acquisition.
    Further, the BLM has published requests for nominations by the public
    of properties eligible for acquisition using FLTFA funds in each
    affected State. In addition, during the development of the May 2007
    Secretarial initiative, each participating agency relied on acquisition
    priorities identified within the framework of the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund land acquisition procedures, and determined which of
    these priorities were consistent with the FLTFA and the 2003 MOU.
    Absent nominations by the public of specific eligible properties, which
    receive consideration in accordance with the 2003 MOU, and State-
    specific agreements, land acquisition priorities remain constant
    regardless of the source of funding. Limitations specific to the FLTFA
    and LWCF authorities and agency policy may influence funding
    eligibility. All participating agencies have many years of experience
    with setting LWCF priorities. The BLM will coordinate with the other
    signatories to the MOU to formalize use of a single process to
    prioritize land acquisitions.

    Conclusion: The DOI will work with the USDA to implement this
    recommendation.

    Recommendation 3: Directed to the BLM, this recommendation is to
    establish a procedure to track the percentage of revenue spent on
    inholdings and adjacent lands.

    Response: The BLM maintains data for all participating agencies on each
    specific parcel acquired using FLTFA funds. Additionally, the BLM has
    determined that its automated land status tracking system has the
    capacity to record such particulars of land acquisitions. The BLM is
    directing field staff to note in the automated land status tracking
    system whether a parcel is an inholding or an edgeholding (adjacent
    land).

    Conclusion: This recommendation will be implemented.

    Recommendation 4: This recommendation is for both the DOI and the USDA
    to establish a procedure to track the fund allocations for land
    acquisition by agency as provided in the MOU.

    Response: The BLM gathers data on each FLTFA transaction and tracks
    respective allocations. The Secretarial initiative and other approved
    acquisition recommendations are consistent with the MOU allocation
    method. The DOI will coordinate with the USDA to ensure that allocation
    tracking procedures are adequate and conform to the MOU.

    Conclusion: The DOI will work with the USDA to implement this
    recommendation. Technical corrections are addressed separately and
    attached.

    If you have any questions, please contact David Beaver, BLM FLTFA/LWCF
    Program Lead, at (202) 452-7788, or Andrea Nygren, BLM Audit Liaison
    Officer, at (202) 452-5153.

    Sincerely,

    Signed by:

    Nina Rose Hatfield:

    for:

    James E. Cason:

    Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgements:

    GAO Contact: Robin N. Nazzaro, (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov:

    Staff Acknowledgements: In addition to those named above, Andrea
    Wamstad Brown, Assistant Director; Mark Keenan; Emily Larson; John
    Scott; and Rebecca Shea made key contributions to this report. Also
    contributing to the report were Anthony Covacevich, Rich Johnson, Paul
    Kinney, and Carol Herrnstadt Shulman.

    [End of section]

    Footnotes:

    [1] U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture,
    National Land Acquisition Plan (Washington, D.C., February 2005). The
    agencies estimated the following acres of inholdings: National Park
    Service--6.5 million acres; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service--17.3
    million acres; Forest Service--about 40 million acres; and BLM--over 7
    million acres within National Monuments and National Conservation areas
    and several million more in other areas.

    [2] Pub. L. 106-248 (2000) (codified as 43 U.S.C. � 2301 et seq).

    [3] Land exchanges generate revenue for BLM when the value of the
    federal land exchanged is greater than the nonfederal land and a cash
    equalization payment is made for the difference.

    [4] The authority is provided in the Federal Land Policy and Management
    Act (FLPMA) of 1976 (Pub. L. 94-579 (1976) (codified at 43 U.S.C. �
    1701 et seq.) FLPMA defines the 11 contiguous western states as
    Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico,
    Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming (43 U.S.C. 1702, � 103 (o)).
    BLM's Alaska State Office is not currently participating in FLTFA
    because of its priority to settle Alaska Native land claims.

    [5] BLM land use plans may also be called "resource management plans"
    and "management framework plans." We will refer to them as land use
    plans, the term used in FLTFA.

    [6] This new account is referred to in the act as the Federal Land
    Disposal Account. Before FLTFA, revenues from these transactions were
    typically deposited into the Treasury's general fund.

    [7] According to the act (43 USC 2302), the term "exceptional resource"
    means a resource of scientific, natural, historic, cultural, or
    recreational value that has been documented by a federal, state, or
    local governmental authority, and for which there is a compelling need
    for conservation and protection under the jurisdiction of a Federal
    agency in order to maintain the resource for the benefit of the public.

    [8] For this report, "field offices" refers to BLM's 26 district
    offices, and 118 field offices

    [9] Effective October 1, 2007, a reorganization of the BLM centers in
    Denver merged the National Business Center, National Human Resources
    Management Center, National Information Resources Management Center,
    and National Science and Technology Center into a single unit called
    the National Operations Center. The National Business Center is now
    known as the Division of Business Services.

    [10] This refers to Title I of Pub. L. 106-248, which provides for the
    federal acquisition of the Baca Ranch in New Mexico. FLTFA is Title II
    of this act.

    [11] The Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 established the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund. Pub. L. 88-578. Among other sources of
    land acquisition funding is the Migratory Bird Fund used exclusively by
    the Fish and Wildlife Service.

    [12] The LWCF is a trust fund that accumulates revenue from federal
    outdoor recreation user fees, the federal motorboat fuel tax, and
    surplus property sales. To supplement these sources to reach its annual
    authorized level of $900 million, the fund accumulates revenues from
    oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf.

    [13] By comparison, in fiscal year 2006, Congress appropriated $41.8
    million, or about 35 percent, to the Forest Service; $34.4 million, or
    about 29 percent, to the Park Service; and $28.0 million, or about 23
    percent, to the Fish and Wildlife Service; and $7.3 million, or about 6
    percent, for U.S. Department of the Interior appraisal services.

    [14] Pub. L. 105-263, 112 Stat. 2343 (1998), as amended. Other acts
    include the Lincoln County Land Act of 2000, Pub. L. 106-298; and the
    White Pine County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of
    2006, Title III, Pub. L. 109-432.

    [15] SNPLMA also authorizes the expenditure of funds on additional
    categories, such as certain capital improvements; development of a
    multispecies habitat plan in Clark County, Nevada; and development of
    parks, trails, and natural areas in Clark County, Nevada.

    [16] See Pub. L. 136, August 31, 1951 (65 Stat. 248, 252).

    [17] Pub. L. 106-298: Lincoln County Land Act Of 2000, as amended by
    Pub. L. 108-424 (2004) Title III, White Pine County Conservation,
    Recreation, and Development Act of 2006.

    [18] n 2000, BLM estimated that there were more than 3.3 million acres
    potentially available for disposal. (BLM, �Questions and Answers:
    Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act, Title II, of The Valles
    Caldera Preservation Act (Baca Ranch, NM)� (April 4, 2003, [hyperlink,
    http://www.blm.gov/nhp/news/releases/pages/2000/valles_QsAs.htm]
    accessed on February 28, 2007). However, the BLM FLTFA program lead
    said that only a small percentage of the land designated for disposal
    are good candidates for sale because the projected revenue from the
    sale exceeds the cost to conduct the sale.

    [19] The BLM FLTFA program lead reported more recently that a revised
    estimate of future sales revenue had been prepared for the FY 2008 and
    beyond. The estimate projects an average of $7.5 million in annual
    sales revenue or a total of $82.5 million in revenue from FY 2008
    through FY 2018, with the assumptions that the program is extended,
    that revised program authority adds to the inventory of land available
    for sale and that the program is made a priority by BLM state
    directors.

    [20] GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government
    Performance and Results Act, GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington, D.C.: June
    1996).

    [21] Sec. 205(a) of Pub. L. 106-248 (2000), codified at 43 U.S.C. �
    2305.

    [22] An acquisition is considered complete when the property title is
    transferred from the nonfederal landowner to the federal government.

    [23] FLTFA allows up to 20 percent of revenue raised to be used for
    administrative activities related to land disposals. If the agencies do
    not need the total amount allowed for administrative expenses, they may
    use the remainder for acquisitions. See fig. 2.

    [24] BLM's FLTFA program lead stated that the program's emphasis on
    inholdings naturally addresses the management efficiency criterion
    because the acquisition of inholdings reduces the cost and burden of
    managing the public land around an inholding.

    [25] The BLM FLTFA program lead said that the criteria for acquisitions
    under LWCF are generally broad enough to include the criteria under
    FLTFA.

    [26] BLM's Assistant Director for Minerals, Realty, and Resource
    Protection confirmed that FLTFA "provides for two separate categories
    of lands...that can be purchased"--inholdings and adjacent lands--and
    funds must be used within these parameters.

    [27] The MOU also states that the Secretaries "may mutually decide to
    allocate funds to a specific acquisition project, notwithstanding
    [these fund allocations]."

    [28] BLM reported that the first national training workshop on FLTFA
    for BLM and the other three agencies was held in December 2007, during
    which the tracking of the funding allocations was to be clarified.

    GAO's Mission:

    The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
    investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
    its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
    and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
    GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
    policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
    to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
    decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
    values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

    Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:

    The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
    cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
    weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
    correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
    posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
    and select "Subscribe to Updates."

    Order by Mail or Phone:

    The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
    each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
    of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
    more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
    Orders should be sent to:

    U.S. Government Accountability Office:
    441 G Street NW, Room LM:
    Washington, D.C. 20548:

    To order by Phone:
    Voice: (202) 512-6000:
    TDD: (202) 512-2537:
    Fax: (202) 512-6061:

    To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:

    Contact:

    Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
    E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
    Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:

    Congressional Relations:

    Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov:
    (202) 512-4400:
    U.S. Government Accountability Office:
    441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
    Washington, D.C. 20548:

    Public Affairs:

    Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
    (202) 512-4800:
    U.S. Government Accountability Office:
    441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
    Washington, D.C. 20548:

    *** End of document. ***