[Audit Report on the Identification of Unneeded Acquired Lands, Bureau of Reclamation]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Report No. 99-i-133
Title: Audit Report on the Identification of Unneeded Acquired
Lands, Bureau of Reclamation
Date: December 21, 1998
**********DISCLAIMER**********
This file contains an ASCII representation of an OIG report.
No attempt has been made to display graphic images or
illustrations.
Some tables may be included, but may not resemble those in the
printed version.
A printed copy of this report may be obtained by referring to the
PDF
file or by calling the Office of Inspector General, Division of
Acquisition and Management Operations at (202) 208-4599.
******************************
U.S. Department of the Interior
Office of Inspector General
AUDIT REPORT
IDENTIFICATION OF UNNEEDED ACQUIRED
LANDS, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
REPORT NO. 99-I-133
DECEMBER 1998
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Secretary
FROM: Eljay B. Bowron
Inspector General
SUBJECT SUMMARY: Final Audit Report -
"Identification of Unneeded Acquired Lands,
Bureau of Reclamation" (No. 99-i-133)
Attached for your information is a copy of the subject final
audit report. Theobjective of the audit was to determine
whether the Bureau of Reclamation wasconducting the
required reviews of real property it manages to identify,
report, and dispose of acquired lands no longer needed
for project purposes in accordance with Federal and
Bureau regulations and Reclamation law.
The Bureau had not conducted real property reviews since
1993 to identify unneeded acquired lands associated with
its water projects. Federal Property Management
Regulations require that each executive agency conduct
annual reviews of real property to determine whether any
portion of the property is not being used, is being
underused, or is not being put to optimum use. However,
the Bureau did not conduct its acquired lands reviews
primarily because it had assigned a low priority to
such reviews. In addition, the Bureau had "sunsetted"
its internal instructions implementing the Federal Property
Management Regulations. Thus, according to some Bureau regional
and area office employees, they did not believe that the
"sunsetted" instructions should be followed. As a result
of not identifying unneeded acquired lands through the
required process, the Bureau did not initiate actions to
report and dispose of such lands and to generate potential
revenues from the sale of these lands. Our review of 14
projects or project units identified about 67,220 acres
of potentially unneeded acquired lands, which had a Bureau
-estimated current value of about $17.5 million. According
to Bureau officials, the estimated current value is based
on the purchase price of the land and does not represent the
land's fair market value.
In its response, the Bureau agreed with our three recommendations
to address these issues. Based on the response, we considered
the three recommendations resolved but not implemented.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please
contact me at (202) 208-5745 or Mr. Robert J. Williams,
Assistant Inspector General for Audits, at (202) 208-4252.
Attachment
December 21, 1998 W-IN-BOR-001-98-D
AUDIT REPORT
Memorandum
To: Assistant Secretary for Water and Science
From: Robert J. Williams
Assistant Inspector General for Audits
Subject: Audit Report on the Identification of
Unneeded Acquired Lands, Bureau of
Reclamation (No. 99-i-133)
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our audit of the
Bureau of Reclamation's review process for identifying
unneeded acquired lands. The objective of the audit
was to determine whether the Bureau was conducting the
required reviews of real property[1] it manages to
identify, report, and dispose of acquired lands no
longer needed for project purposes in accordance with
Federal and Bureau regulations and Reclamation law.
BACKGROUND
The Reclamation Act of 1902 and subsequent statutes
authorized the Bureau to construct, operate, and
maintain an infrastructure of water storage
facilities[2] to reclaim arid and semiarid lands in
the Western United States. Bureau projects consist of
about 348 storage dams and reservoirs and 54,500 miles
of canals and other conveyance and distribution
facilities.
In the late 1980s, the Bureau concluded that it had
mostly achieved its mission as a developer of large,
Federally funded water projects and redefined its
mission to that of a water resources management agency
focused on conservation and the environment. As a
result, Bureau programs are gradually changing from
emphasizing construction to emphasizing water
conservation, wastewater reuse, river basin
management, and environmental restoration. Some of
the projects the Bureau anticipated constructing will
not be built, and in some cases, the lands acquired
will not be needed for project purposes.
On November 1, 1993, the Commissioner, Bureau of
Reclamation, stated in the memorandum "Blueprint for
Reform" that "all existing guidance [Reclamation
Instructions] will be sunset[ted] at the end of fiscal
year 1995 unless affirmatively retained or revised and
reissued prior to then." However, the requirements
set forth in the Federal Property Management
Regulations (41 CFR 101-47.8) remained in effect and
provided criteria for identifying unneeded Federal
real property and required executive agencies to
conduct annual reviews of their real property and
prepare detailed written records of the reviews. The
"sunsetted" Reclamation Instructions (Series 210,
Parts 215.1.9A and 215.10.2) implementing the Federal
Property Management Regulations required that land
reviews be conducted at a minimum of "every 5 years,
with more frequent reviews for areas with special
problems or relatively weak managing agencies" and
defined unneeded property as property with no
foreseeable future need and property not used for
program purposes within 3 years from the end of the
current fiscal year. Part 215.10.2 further stated
that "[t]he less certain this probable future need is,
the greater consideration must be given to disposal."
As of January 1998, the Bureau's automated land
management record system (the Resource Information
System) listed 178 projects with associated acquired
land of 2.2 million acres, ranging from 0.3 acre to
267,008 acres. This land, which was acquired for
project purposes through purchases, condemnations,
gifts, or exchanges, is managed primarily by other
agencies, including other Department of the Interior
agencies, other Federal departments, state
governments, and local jurisdictions. However, the
Bureau is responsible for identifying, reporting, and
disposing of unneeded acquired lands.
SCOPE OF AUDIT
We conducted our audit from January through June 1998
at the Bureau offices identified in Appendix 2. To
accomplish our objective, we reviewed applicable
Federal laws and Federal and Bureau regulations and
policies, including draft Reclamation Manuals,
governing the ownership of real property as it relates
to acquired land and Bureau activities pertaining to
land reviews conducted from 1993 through 1997. Based
on the percentage of acquired lands associated with
each Bureau project, information obtained from a 1985
General Accounting Office report[3] about projects
with unneeded acquired lands, and an examination of
project maps, we judgmentally selected projects within
regional and area offices to be reviewed. As such, we
conducted a detailed review of selected land parcels
on 14 projects or project units (see Appendix 3)
representing about 30 percent, or about 660,000 acres,
of the Bureau's 2.2 million acres of acquired
lands.[4] Our review of each project or unit included
an examination of authorizing legislation; realty
documents, including project plat and other maps,
correspondence, and project and land management
reports related to land acquisition, management, and
disposal; and documents related to land use, including
management plans and lease agreements with local
entities and private parties. In addition, we
interviewed cognizant Bureau program and realty
personnel familiar with the projects or project units
under review.
The audit was made, as applicable, in accordance with
the "Government Auditing Standards," issued by the
Comptroller General of the United States.
Accordingly, we included such tests of records and
other auditing procedures that were considered
necessary under the circumstances. As part of the
audit, we reviewed the Departmental Reports on
Accountability for fiscal years 1996 and 1997, which
included information required by the Federal Managers'
Financial Integrity Act, and determined that no
material weaknesses were reported that directly
related to the objective and scope of our audit.
We also reviewed the system of internal controls over
the Bureau's process of reviewing acquired land to the
extent that we considered necessary. We found that
the Bureau had not established the internal controls
and procedures needed to ensure that the required real
property reviews were conducted and, accordingly, had
not identified unneeded acquired lands through this
process. These weaknesses are addressed in the
"Results of Audit" section of this report. Our
recommendations, if implemented, should improve the
internal controls in these areas.
PRIOR AUDIT COVERAGE
Neither the Office of Inspector General nor the
General Accounting Office has issued any reports on
the Bureau's identification and disposal of unneeded
acquired lands within the last 5 years.
RESULTS OF AUDIT
The Bureau of Reclamation has not conducted real
property reviews since 1993 to identify unneeded
acquired lands associated with its water projects.
Federal Property Management Regulations require that
each executive agency conduct annual reviews of real
property to determine whether any portion of the
property is not being used, is being underused, or is
not being put to optimum use. However, we concluded
that the Bureau did not conduct its acquired lands
reviews primarily because it had assigned a low
priority to such reviews. In addition, the Bureau had
"sunsetted" its internal instructions implementing the
Federal Property Management Regulations. Thus,
according to some Bureau regional and area office
employees, they did not believe that the "sunsetted"
instructions should be followed. As a result of not
identifying unneeded acquired lands through the
required process, the Bureau did not initiate actions
to report and dispose of such lands and to generate
potential revenues from the sale of these lands. Our
review of 14 projects or project units identified
about 67,220 acres of potentially unneeded acquired
lands, which had a Bureau-estimated current value of
about $17.5 million (see Appendix 3). According to
Bureau officials, the estimated current value is
based on the purchase price of the land and does not
represent the land's fair market value.
The Code of Federal Regulations (41 CFR 101-47.201-1
and 201-2, "Federal Property Management Regulations")
requires annual reviews of real property to "stimulate
the identification and reporting . . . of excess real
property . . . [t]o achieve the maximum utilization
[of real property] . . . in terms of economy and
efficiency." In 1985, the General Services
Administration stated that "departments and agencies
should schedule surveys of their real property
holdings on a 5-year cycle" and initiated procedures
for most land-managing agencies to perform intensive
reviews in accordance with the Code (41 CFR 101-47.8).
In addition, prior Reclamation Instructions and the
draft "Reclamation Manual on Administration of Land
Resources"[5] state that acquired lands should be
reviewed, at a minimum, every 5 years.
We found that none of the Bureau's regions and area
offices visited or contacted had conducted the
acquired land reviews since 1993. As such, we
performed audit fieldwork to determine whether
selected acquired lands retained by the Bureau were
needed for project purposes. Based on our review of
the selected 14 projects or project units, we
identified 67,220 acres of potentially unneeded
acquired lands that had an estimated current value of
approximately $17.5 million, as detailed in Appendix 3
and discussed as follows:
- We identified 36,525 acres that had been purchased
to obtain water rights at the Gila (4,530 acres),
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control (2,995 acres),
and Humboldt (29,000 acres) Projects. Although the
acquired land will be less valuable without water
rights, Bureau officials for the three projects agreed
that the land was not needed for project purposes. At
the Gila Project, 1,770 acres were part of a bombing
range at a U.S. Air Force range, and 2,760 acres were
idle. The 2,995 acres at the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Project were idle, and the Yuma Area
Office had identified three trespasses on the land,
one of which has been ongoing since 1996. The 29,000
acres at the Humboldt Project were used only for
seasonal pasturing of livestock, which is not a
project purpose.
- We identified 6,321 acres of land located above the
reservoir capacity elevation at the Willow Creek (650
acres), Canyon Ferry (475 acres), Stony Gorge (440
acres), and East Park (250 acres) Reservoirs and at
Elwell (3,500 acres) and Banks (860 acres) Lakes.
Under the Code of Federal Regulations (43 CFR 8), the
Department of the Interior and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers are required to acquire and retain land only
up to the design capacity of the reservoir. In
addition, at the Canyon Ferry Reservoir, we identified
acquired lands (146 acres) that were used as a golf
course and athletic field, which were not project
purposes.
- We identified 2,327 acres of land at the Narrows
Unit of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program. Of
this land, 1,065 acres were located outside the
boundary of the Unit, which was downsized in 1984.
Although the remaining 1,262 acres were within
authorized project boundaries, Bureau officials told
us that neither the original nor a downsized version
of the Unit would be built. Accordingly, the Bureau's
retention of the 2,327 acres does not appear to be
warranted. The Unit was authorized in 1970 but was
never developed because of environmental concerns
about the impact of the Unit on threatened and
endangered species in the Platte River system.
- We identified 19,589 acres of land at the Oahe Unit
of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program. According
to Bureau officials, the Unit will not be built in the
foreseeable future. The Congress discontinued
construction appropriations beginning in fiscal year
1978 and, in 1982, enacted legislation authorizing the
Secretary of the Interior to find other uses for
existing facilities constructed under the initial
stage of the Unit, cancel existing repayment contracts
with the districts, and treat costs already incurred
as deferred Program costs. The construction of the
Unit has been opposed by local interests, including
project beneficiaries who believe that project
benefits do not justify the cost of development. Of
the 19,814 acres of land acquired by the Bureau to
develop the Unit, 225 acres were used for fish and
wildlife mitigation and enhancement, which were
authorized project purposes of the Unit. At the time
of our review, we noted that 18,525 of the 19,589
acres of unneeded lands were leased exclusively for
livestock grazing and for agricultural purposes, which
are not project purposes.
- We identified 1,810 acres of acquired land located
at the Sun River Project (1,360 acres) and at Shasta
(300 acres) and New Melones (150 acres) Lakes that
were potentially unneeded because the land was located
outside project boundaries or existing recreational
areas and was not used for project purposes at the
time of our review. During our review, Bureau
officials agreed with this assessment of need.
- While reviewing project files at the Mid-Pacific and
Great Plains Regional Offices and the South-Central
California and Montana Area Offices, we found 13
parcels, totaling 648 acres, at four projects or
project units that had been previously identified for
disposal by the Bureau prior to 1993 or that had a
long-term trespass history but had not been disposed
of. Realty personnel said that they were not aware
that these parcels had been previously identified as
unneeded, and Bureau project files did not include
documentation to indicate that the parcels' status had
changed. For instance, of the 10 parcels, totaling
48 acres, located along the Friant-Kern Canal,
9 parcels, totaling 45 acres, were identified as
unneeded as early as 1984, and a 3-acre parcel has
been the subject of a trespass by a local farmer since
1992, at which time an expired lease agreement was not
renewed. Officials at the South-Central California
Area Office told us that they did not have time to
resolve the trespass and that the land was being
retained because of a 1991 U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service biological opinion that required a survey of
the lands served by the Canal within 18 months to
identify remaining habitat for threatened or
endangered species. However, at the time of our
review, the survey had not been initiated.
We believe that the Bureau had not performed the
required reviews because it assigned a low priority to
conducting such reviews. Bureau officials told us
that the Bureau had "few land disposal tools"
available to assist it in identifying and disposing of
its unneeded acquired lands. Bureau officials said
that they believed the following factors justified why
the reviews were not conducted: (1) realty employees
who conducted the reviews had left the Bureau during
extensive downsizing, (2) land acquired for projects
unlikely to be built or completed as planned should
not be disposed of until the projects were formally
deauthorized by the Congress, (3) land not presently
needed for a project might be needed in the future for
purposes such as recreation and fish and wildlife
enhancement, and (4) Reclamation Instructions
requiring real property reviews and the identification
of unneeded acquired land were "sunsetted" at the end
of fiscal year 1995. Officials in the Bureau's
Program Analysis Office stated that they believed that
these Instructions would be followed by area and field
offices until the Reclamation Manual on the
administration of land resources was completed and
issued. However, field personnel told us that they
were not aware that the "sunsetted" Instructions
remained in effect. While we recognize that these
factors may have affected the Bureau's allocation of
staff and funding resources, we were not able to
confirm that these factors prevented the Bureau from
performing any acquired land reviews and taking
appropriate actions, such as notifying the Congress of
its intention to dispose of acquired lands on projects
unlikely to be built.
In the September 25, 1998, response (Appendix 4) to
the draft of this report from the Commissioner, Bureau
of Reclamation, the Bureau reported that it had
disposed of 4,600 acres of acquired land with an
estimated current market value of $9.3 million during
fiscal years 1993 through 1997. Upon receipt of the
response, we requested additional information related
to the disposals cited. However, the Bureau did not
specify the individual parcels or the bases for the
estimated current fair market value. Therefore, we
were not able to verify the accuracy of the reported
disposals. At the locations we visited, we did not
identify any regularly scheduled real property reviews
and subsequent disposals of acquired lands.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Commissioner, Bureau of
Reclamation:
1. Develop and issue clear policies and procedures to
guide Bureau officials in conducting land reviews and
identifying unneeded real property.
2. Establish a Bureauwide plan of action to ensure that
regular reviews of real property are conducted based
on the guidance developed under Recommendation 1.
3. In implementing Recommendations 1 and 2, notify the
Congress of the Bureau's intention to dispose of
acquired lands in accordance with 41 CFR 101-47 that
were initially purchased for authorized projects but
presently are not needed for undeveloped or incomplete
projects.
Bureau of Reclamation Response and Office of Inspector
General Reply
In the September 25, 1998, response (Appendix 4), the
Bureau concurred with the three recommendations.
Based on the response, we consider the recommendations
resolved but not implemented. Accordingly, the
unimplemented recommendations will be referred to the
Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget
for tracking of implementation, and no further
response to the Office of Inspector General is
required (see Appendix 5).
Additional Comments on Audit Report
In its response, the Bureau also made additional
comments on the draft report regarding the Bureau's
land disposal program. These comments primarily
addressed two Bureau concerns: (1) "narrow
interpretation" and application of the Code of Federal
Regulations (43 CFR 8, "Joint Policies of the
Departments of the Interior and of the Army Relative
to Reservoir Project Lands") by the audit team and (2)
lack of recognition of Bureau actions in reviewing,
disposing of, and retaining acquired lands. The
Bureau's comments and our replies to the comments are
as follows:
The Bureau stated that the audit team used a "narrow
interpretation" of the Code (43 CFR 8) when the team
identified the 67,220 acres of acquired lands as
potentially unneeded. Specifically, the Bureau
stated, "The interpretation that has been applied is
that if the lands do not have structures or actual
waters associated with the reservoirs, then the lands
are excess to the authorized project program
requirements." The Bureau further stated that it
believes the policy is "broader than described in the
report" and that the Code (43 CFR 8) "provides for
management discretion in acquiring additional lands
for fish and wildlife" and "future outdoor
recreation." The Bureau concluded, "It is important
not to dispose of lands that may have habitat
potential for wildlife or that may be beneficial for
program mitigation purposes."
Although we agree that the regulation allows the
Bureau the discretion to acquire additional lands for
future fish and wildlife and recreational purposes, we
disagree that we applied a narrow interpretation of
the Code (43 CFR 8). In that regard, we believe that
the Bureau should use the land for the purposes for
which it was purchased or document specific future
needs. Without such use or documented need, the
continued retention of the land is questionable. For
example, the land identified around Lake Elway was
purchased in the mid-1950s for the purpose of
providing an irrigation water supply that was never
fully developed. The land identified in this instance
is currently used to graze livestock, and the Bureau
has not documented a present or future need associated
with fish and wildlife habitat or outdoor recreation.
Further, we believe that adopting the Bureau's
interpretation that lands, if they may have habitat or
recreation potential, should not be disposed of,
appears to nullify the disposal requirements contained
in the Code (41 CFR 101-47.8) without documented
justification.
The Bureau also stated that during the period of the
audit, 1993 to 1997, some Bureau offices had performed
field reviews of acquired land and had disposed of
acquired land. The Bureau cited the efforts of the
Ephrata Field Office, which reviewed 89,000 acres as
part of its Scattered Tracts Resource Management Plan
and which was evaluating land uses associated with
Banks Lake in the Columbia Basin Project as part of
another resource management planning effort. During
our audit, we noted the reviews conducted by the
Ephrata Field Office as part of its resource
management planning. However, the identification of
unneeded land is normally not a part of such plans but
was included in the Scattered Tracts Plan only because
the sale of "settlement land" was specifically
identified as a project purpose. Therefore, the
review was not part of a systematic real property
review process but was performed only because the land
was identified for sale as part of the project
purpose. In the case of the Banks Lake lands, Bureau
officials told us that the resource management plan
would not address whether the land was needed.
The Bureau also stated that "considerable staff
resources . . . [were] required to effectuate these
disposals" and that our final report "should recognize
that . . . Reclamation disposed of approximately 4,600
acres of acquired land with a current fair market
value of over $9,300,000." During our audit
fieldwork, Bureau officials did not inform us of the
disposal of the 4,600 acres. Therefore, we contacted
the Bureau after receiving its response and inquired
about the specifics of these transactions. However,
the Bureau was not able to identify the projects or
parcels involved or the bases for the estimate of
current fair market value. As a result, we were not
able to verify the accuracy of the reported disposals.
However, we have added a paragraph to the report (page
6) to recognize the Bureau's comments. The Bureau
further stated, "In other cases, there are valid
reasons why the disposal of lands has not occurred."
In that regard, the Bureau cited 19,589 acres of land
in the Oahe Unit being retained "pending final
negotiations with the State of South Dakota" and
"`unused' lands associated with the Gila and Lower
Colorado River Salinity Control Acts." Regarding the
Oahe Unit, we were not made aware during our audit of
the Bureau's negotiations with the State of South
Dakota. Regarding the Bureau's retaining "unused"
lands associated with the Gila and Lower Colorado
River Salinity Control Acts to avoid the risk of real
estate development and the concomitant pumping of
groundwater, we believe, and Bureau officials agreed,
that these lands could be sold without water rights.
We commend the Bureau for the actions it has taken
regarding the review and disposal of acquired land.
However, these actions were the result of reviews
performed outside of the acquired land review process,
such as disposals initiated by local governmental
agencies or private parties interested in obtaining or
using Bureau land, rather than the result of real
property reviews conducted in a consistent and uniform
manner in accordance with regulations.
Notwithstanding these actions, we identified the
67,220 acres of acquired land as possibly unneeded
because no documented determination on use (current or
future) had been made by the Bureau at the time of our
audit.
The legislation, as amended, creating the Office of
Inspector General requires semiannual reporting to the
Congress on all audit reports issued, the monetary
impact of audit findings (Appendix 1), actions taken
to implement audit recommendations, and identification
of each significant recommendation on which corrective
action has not been taken.
We appreciate the assistance of Bureau personnel in
the conduct of our audit.
**FOOTNOTES**
[1]:As used in this report, real property refers to the
land acquired by the Bureau for project purposes.
[2]:These facilities serve multiple purposes, including
irrigation, municipal and industrial water supply, power,
flood control, recreation, fish and wildlife mitigation
and enhancement, and navigation.
[3]:The report "The Bureau of Reclamation Could Identify
More Unneeded Land" (No. GAO/RCED-85-25), issued on April
12, 1985.
[4]:Our review did notconsist of a detailed examination
of all 178 Bureau projects.
[5]:The Bureau provided us with the draft manual, which
had not been officially approved and released as
of June 1998. The Manual reestablishes most of the
responsibilities and requirements from prior Reclamation
Instructions. Specifically, it states that regional
directors and area managers are responsible for
administering land resources under Bureau jurisdiction even
if management of the land is transferred to another
entity; specialized use of the land, such as grazing,
is allowed only if the use is compatible with authorized
project purposes; private and semiprivate long-term use
of the land, such as new cabins, clubs, or organized
camps, is not allowed; and reviews of land are required, at
a minimum, every 5 years to identify health and safety
hazards, trespasses, lands no longer needed for project
purposes, and authorized uses that may no longer be in the
best interest of the public or the project. However, the
Bureau had not established a date for issuing the draft
Reclamation Manual, as it was being revised at the time of
our audit.
APPENDIX 1
CLASSIFICATION OF MONETARY AMOUNTS
---------------------------------------------------------
Potential
Finding Additional Revenues
Acquired Lands $17,454,317*
Identified as Possibly
Unneeded
---------------------------------------------------------
* Disposal may not always result in revenues to the U.S.
Treasury. Before property is offered for sale to the
public, information about the property is circulated to
determine whether the property is needed by any other
Federal agency, including the Department of Housing and
Urban Development regarding its suitability for use by the
homeless. In addition, Reclamation law frequently requires
that revenues from the sale of land be credited against
existing water district repayment obligations to expedite
the repayment of those contracts.
APPENDIX 2
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
OFFICES VISITED OR CONTACTED
Office Location
Program Analysis Office Denver, Colorado
Mid-Pacific Regional Office Sacramento, California
Northern California Area Office Willows, California
Northern California Area Office* Shasta Lake, California
South-Central California Area Office Fresno, California
Lahontan Basin Area Office* Carson City, Nevada
Central California Area Office Folsom, California
New Melones Lake Field Office Sonora, California
Pacific Northwest Regional Office* Boise, Idaho
Upper Columbia Area Office* Yakima, Washington
Ephrata Field Office Ephrata, Washington
Snake River Area Office* Boise, Idaho
Great Plains Regional Office Billings, Montana
Eastern Colorado Area Office* Loveland, Colorado
Montana Area Office Billings, Montana
Nebraska-Kansas Area Office* Grand Island, Nebraska
Newell Field Office* Newell, South Dakota
Oklahoma City Field Office* Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Lower Colorado Regional Office* Boulder City, Nevada
Yuma Area Office Yuma, Arizona
Phoenix Area Office* Phoenix, Arizona
Upper Colorado Regional Office* Salt Lake City, Utah
*Offices contacted
APPENDIX 3
Page 12 of 5
ACQUIRED LANDS IDENTIFIED AS POSSIBLY UNNEEDED
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| | | |
|Estimated
|Region/ |Reasons for |Questioned|Section, Township,
|Current
|Project |Questioning |Acres | and Range
|Value2
| |Need of Property1| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Great Plains Region
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sun Land is located 1,360 Sections 21, 27,
$272,000
River outside of project 28, 33, and 34, T.
Project boundaries and has 23 N., R. 1 W.;
not been used for Section 2, T. 22
project purposes. N., R. 1 W.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Land around Willow 650 Sections 18, 19,
74,131
Creek Reservoir is and 30, T. 21 N.,
above capacity R. 6 W. and
elevation and has Sections 23, 26
not been used for and 35, T. 21 N.,
project purposes. R. 7 W.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mountain Land not located 160 Section 35, T.4
117,736
Park within original N., R.17 W.
Project project boundaries
was identified as
excess in 1978 and
has not been used
for project
purposes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin
Program
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Narrows Land is located 1,065 Section 28, T. 4
1,785,000
Unit outside unit N., R.58 W.;
boundaries and has Sections 26, 27,
not been used for and 35, T. 4 N.,
project purposes. R. 59 W.; Section
19, T. 4 N.,
R. 60 W.; and
Sections 14, 28,
33, and 34, T. 5
N., R. 60 W.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Land represents 1,262 Sections 21 and
1,675,949
remaining acquired 28, T. 4 N., R. 58
acres associated W.; Sections 24,
with the project 26, and 27, T. 4
that was authorized N., R. 59 W.; and
in 1970 but was Section 18, T. 4
never constructed N., R. 60 W.
and, according to
Bureau personnel,
probably never will
be.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Oahe Unit has not been 19,589 The location of
7,034,606
Unit completed as planned the 225 acres used
and, according to for fish and
Bureau personnel, wildlife
probably will not be enhancement, a
constructed. project purpose,
was not
identifiable in
project files.
The 19,589 acres
consist of the
remaining acquired
project land.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Land around Elwell 3,500 Sections 5 and 6,
SectionsN.,
Marias Lake is above R. 1 1,492,169 T. 29 N.,
Unit capacity elevation R. 5 E.; 20,E.;
and not used for Sections 1 and 2,
27,Sections
project purposes. T. 29 N., R. 4 E.; 28,14,
15,
Sections 6, 7, 9, and22,
23,
15, 16, 24, and 34,24,
and
25, T. 30 N., R. 1 T.25,
T.
E.; Sections 13, 3031 N.,
14, 20, 21, 22, N.,R. 3
E.;
23, and 28, T. 30 R.and
N., R. 2 E.; 5
Sections
Sections 16, 17, E.;29,
30,
and 18, T. 30 N.,
Sections32,
and R. 3 E.; 31,34, T.
Sections 3, 15, 32,31
N.,
16, 17, 20, 26, andR. 4
E.
29, and 30, T. 30 33,
N., R. 4 E.; T. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Unit land was 8 Section 35, T. 30
7,670
identified as N., R.13 E.
unneeded for project
purposes in 1989 and
is still in the
Bureau's possession.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Canyon Land is used for a 146 Sections 28 and
274,358
Ferry golf course and 29, T. 7 N., R. 2
Unit athletic field near E.
the City of
Townsend, Montana,
which were not
project purposes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Land around Canyon 475 Sections 27, 34,
168,925
Ferry Reservoir is and 35, T. 9 N.,
above capacity R. 1 E.; and
elevation and has Sections 2 and 11,
not been used for T. 8 N., R. 1 E.
project purposes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1 Project purposes are defined in individual project and
specific authorization laws and include such uses as power,
irrigation, flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife
mitigation and enhancement.
2 The estimated current value was obtained from the
Bureauwide automated real property management system
(Resource Information System), which uses index coefficients
to compute an acceptable range for estimating the current value
of the Bureau's acquired lands, which we accepted. In addition,
for acreage without value in the real property system and land
purchased for water rights, estimates were obtained from
regional and area office officials. Further, there are various
costs that will be incurred with the sale of land,
such as costs for land survey and appraisal and environmental and
historical research, which we could not quantify during our
review.
APPENDIX 3
Page 12
of 5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Colorado Region
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gila Land was idle and 2,760 Section 15, T. 9
690,0003
Project has not been used S., R. 19 W.;
for project Sections 2, 11,
purposes. and 12, T. 8 S.,
R. 22 W.; and
Sections 16, 33,
34, and 35, T. 8
S., R. 16 W.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Land was used as 1,770 Sections 26, 28, 4
part of a bombing 29, 33, and 36, T.
range by the Air 9 S., R. 18 W.
Force and has not
been used for
project purposes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado Land was idle and |grove. 2,995 Sections9
and748,7505
River has not been used | 13,10,
Basin for project | 14,T. 9 S.,
Salinity purposes. In | 15,R. 18
Control addition, the Area | andW.; and
Project Office incurred | 27,Sections
trespass-related | T.3 and
administrative | 8 11, T.
burden because of | S.,11 S.,
three trespasses. | R.R. 23 W.
One trespasser has, | 16
since 1996, used | W.;
over 1 acre of this | Section 25,
unneeded Federal | T.
land to farm | 8
alfalfa, store | S.,
equipment, and | R. 17 W.;
extend his citrus | Sections
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mid-Pacific Region
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Orland Land around Stony 440 Sections 15, 21,
253,773
Project Gorge Reservoir is 22, and 28, T. 20
above capacity N., R. 6 W.
elevation and has
not been used for
project purposes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Land around East 250 Sections 34 and
77,988
Park Reservoir is 35, T. 18 N., R.
above capacity 6 W.; and Sections
elevation and has 3, 15, and 23,
not been used for T. 17 N., R. 6 W.
project purposes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Humboldt Land was obtained 29,000 Battle Mountain
2,000,0006
Project for water rights and Community Pasture
has not been used in T. 32 N., R.
for project 44, 45, 46, and 47
purposes. E.; T. 33 N., R.
44 and 45 E.; and
T. 34 N., R. 44 E.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Central Valley Project
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
New Land was identified 432 Sections 8 and 17,
390,838
Melones as excess in 1992, T. 1 N., R. 13 E.
Unit has not been used
for project
purposes, and has
not been disposed
of.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Land is located 150 Section 31, T. 3
127,729
outside unit N., R. 14 E.
boundaries and has
not been used for
project purposes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Friant- Eight parcels of 17 Section 26, T. 13
119,603
Kern land along the S., R. 23 E.;
Canal Canal, ranging in Section 9, T. 12
size from .71 acre S., R. 26 E.;
to 5.7 acres, were Section 6, T. 29
identified as excess S, R. 27 E.;
in 1989 and have not Section 12,
been disposed of. T. 15 S, R. 24 E.;
Section 13, T. 18
S., R. 26 E;
Section 4, T. 25
S., R. 26 E.; and
Sections 25 and
26, T. 28 S., R.
26 E.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Land was identified 28 Section 18, T. 12
25,201
as excess in 1984, S., R. 22 E.
has not been used
for project
purposes, and has
not been disposed
of.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Trespassed land is 3 Section 29, T. 15
3,471
not needed for S., R. 25 E.
project purposes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shasta Land is located 300 Section 27, T. 35
60,489
Division outside the existing N., R. 5 W.
boundaries of the
Whiskeytown-Shasta-
Trinity National
Recreation Area and
has not been used
for project
purposes. The
identified land
is currently managed
by the U.S. Forest
Service.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
6Estimated current value was adjusted to reflect exclusion
of water rights.
APPENDIX 3
Page 12 of 5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Northwest Region
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Columbia The lands are |860 Sections 9, 11,
|53,931
Basin portions of parcels | 14, 20, 21, and |
Project originally purchased | 29, T. 25 N., R. |
to the nearest 40- | 28 E.; Sections 1, |
acre boundary and | 22, 23, 24, 27, |
are located above | and 34, T. 26 N., |
the cliff wall | R. 28 E.; Sections |
around Bank's Lake. | 8, 18, and 19, |
| T. 26 N., R. 29 |
| E.; Sections 12, |
| 14, 17, 20, 22, |
| 23, 30, and 31, T. |
| 27 N., R. 29 E.; |
| Section 7, T. 27 |
| N., R. 30 E.; and |
| Section 22, T. 28 |
| N., R. 30 E. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Totals |67,220
|$17,454,317
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
6Estimated current value was adjusted
to reflect exclusion of water rights.
APPENDIX 4
Page 1
of 4
6Estimated current value was adjusted
to reflect exclusion of water rights.
APPENDIX 4
Page 1 of 4
6Estimated current value was adjusted
to reflect exclusion of water rights.
APPENDIX 4
Page 1 of 4
6Estimated current value was adjusted
to reflect exclusion of water rights.
APPENDIX 4
Page 1 of 4
6Estimated current value was adjusted
to reflect exclusion of water rights.
APPENDIX4
Page 1 of 4
APPENDIX 5
STATUS OF AUDIT REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
--------------------------------------------------------
Finding/
Recommendation
Reference Status Action Required
--------------------------------------------------------
1, 2, and Resolved; No further response to the
3 not Office of Inspector General is
implemented required. The recommendations
will be referred to the
Assistant Secretary for
Policy, Management and Budget
for tracking of
implementation.
--------------------------------------------------------
6Estimated current value was adjusted
to reflect exclusion of water rights.
ILLEGAL OR WASTEFUL ACTIVITIES SHOULD BE REPORTED
TO THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL BY:
Sending written documents to:
Within the Continental United States
U.S. Department of the Interior
Office of Inspector General
1849 C Street,N.W.
Mail Stop 5341
Washington, D.C. 20240
Calling:
Our 24 hour
Telephone HOTLINE
1-800-424-5081 or
(202) 208-5300
TDD for hearing impaired
(202) 208-2420 or
1-800-354-0996
Outside the Continental United States
Caribbean Region
U.S. Department of the Interior
Office of Inspector General
Eastern Division- Investigations
1550 Wilson Boulevard
Suite 410
Arlington, Virginia 22209
Calling:
(703) 235-9221
North Pacific Region
U.S. Department of the Interior
Office of Inspector General
North Pacific Region
238 Archbishop F.C. F'lores Street
Suite 807, PDN Building
Agana, Guam 96910
Calling:
(700) 550-7428 or
COMM 9-011-671-472-7279