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 [email protected]. 

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 Interiorï¿½s Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 
Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service, and the U.S. 
Department of Agricultureï¿½s 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 
ownï¿½known 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 Nevadaï¿½1 of the 11 western states. Nevada accounts for 
the lionï¿½s 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 
Secretariesï¿½ 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 
2008ï¿½more 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 actï¿½s 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 
GAOï¿½s 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 [email protected]. 

[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 [email protected]. 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 BLMï¿½s interpretation of key provisions of the 
act, we interviewed officials with Interiorï¿½s Office of the Assistant 
Secretary for Land and Minerals Management and Office of the Solicitor 
and, in some cases, requested the departmentï¿½s 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 BLMï¿½s 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 BLMï¿½s 
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 bureauï¿½s 
Division of Business Services and obtained, reviewed, and assessed the 
system of internal controls for the U.S. Treasury account established 
under FLTFA, including managementï¿½s 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 transactionsï¿½858 nonlabor and 14,848 
laborï¿½nationwide. 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 
stateï¿½Arizona, 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 officesï¿½Palm 
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 agencyï¿½s 
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 
Managementï¿½Federal 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 Riverï¿½California'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 [email protected]: 

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. ï¿½ 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. ï¿½ 
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, ï¿½ 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, ï¿½Questions and Answers: 
Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act, Title II, of The Valles 
Caldera Preservation Act (Baca Ranch, NM)ï¿½ (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. ï¿½ 
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: [email protected]: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:  

Congressional Relations:  

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548:  

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548:    

*** End of document. ***