; (ii) the impact to the land grant-merced and its associated communities resulting from the failure of the United States to act on a land grant-merced claim made during the adjudication process; (iii) the impact to the land grant-merced and its associated communities resulting from the rejection of a land grant-merced claim made during the adjudication process; (iv) the impact to the land grant-merced and its associated communities resulting from the incorrect confirmation by the United States of a Land Grant-Merced as a tenancy-in-common; (v) the impact to the land grant-merced and its associated communities resulting from the incorrect confirmation by the United States of the Land Grant-Merced as a private land grant to an individual; (vi) the impact to the land grant-merced and its associated communities resulting from the United States incorrectly issuing a patent for the Land Grant-Merced to the wrong party; (vii) the impact of prior adjudication decisions made by the United States on the submittal of subsequent land claim petitions with respect to the land grant-merced; (viii) the impact to the land grant-merced and its associated communities resulting from the failure of the United States to provide adequate due process to land grant-merced during the adjudication process; (ix) the impact to the land grant-merced and its associated communities resulting from the failure of the United States to provide adequate representation during the adjudication process, as required by law, for certain protected population located on the land grant-merced; and (x) the impact to the land grant-merced and its associated communities resulting from the misconduct or direct conflict of interest of United States officials during the adjudication process; (B) review existing Federal land use policies governing land identified in the qualifying petition; (C) identify and report all private and public leases on land identified in the qualifying petition, including lease type, term, and owner