The most notable of these is the Southern Nevada Public Land  Management Act of 1998 (SNPLMA). 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix V.

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 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.
Why GAO Did This Study

The U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service manage about 628 million acres of public land, mostly in the 11 western states and Alaska. Under the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA), revenue raised from selling BLM lands is available to the agencies, primarily to acquire nonfederal land within the boundaries of land they already own--known as inholdings, which can create significant land management problems. To acquire land, the agencies can nominate parcels under state-level interagency agreements or the Secretaries can use their discretion to initiate acquisitions. FLTFA expires in 2010. GAO was asked to determine (1) FLTFA revenue generated, (2) challenges to future sales, (3) FLTFA expenditures, and (4) challenges to future acquisitions. To address these issues, GAO interviewed officials and examined the act, agency guidance, and FLTFA sale and acquisition data.

What GAO Found

Since FLTFA was enacted in 2000, through May 2007 BLM has raised $95.7 million in revenue, mostly from selling about 17,000 acres. About 92 percent of the revenue raised, or $88 million, has come from land transactions in Nevada--1 of the 11 western states. Nevada accounts for the lion's share of the sales because of a rapidly expanding population, plentiful BLM land, and experience with federal land sales in southern Nevada. Most BLM field offices have not generated sales revenue under FLTFA. BLM faces several challenges to raising revenue through future FLTFA sales. In particular, BLM state and field officials most frequently cited the limited availability of knowledgeable realty staff to conduct the sales. These staff are often not available because they are working on higher priority activities, such as reviewing and approving energy rights-of-way. We identified two additional issues hampering land sales activity under FLTFA. First, while BLM has identified land for sale in its land use plans, it has not made the sale of this land a priority during the first 7 years of the program. Furthermore, BLM has not set goals for sales or developed a sales implementation strategy. Second, GAO found that some of the additional land BLM has identified for sale since FLTFA was enacted would not generate revenue for acquisitions because the act only allows the deposit of revenue from the sale of lands identified for disposal on or before the date of the act. The four land management agencies have spent $13.3 million of the $95.7 million in revenue raised under FLTFA: $10.1 million using the Secretaries' discretion to acquire nine parcels of land and $3.2 million for administrative expenses to prepare land for FLTFA sales. The agencies acquired the land between August 2007 and January 2008--more than 7 years after FLTFA was enacted, and BLM spent the administrative funds between 2000 and 2007, primarily for preparing FLTFA sales in Nevada. As of October 2007, no land had been purchased through the state-level interagency nomination process, which the agencies envisioned as the primary mechanism for acquiring land. Agencies face several challenges to completing future land acquisitions under FLTFA. Most notably, the act requires that the agencies use most of the funds to purchase land in the state in which the funds were raised; this restriction has had the effect of making little revenue available for acquisitions outside of Nevada. Furthermore, progress in acquiring priority lands has been hampered by weak agency performance in identifying inholdings and setting priorities for acquiring them, as required by the act. In addition, GAO found that the agencies have not established procedures to track implementation of the act's requirement that at least 80 percent of FLTFA revenue raised in each state be used to acquire inholdings in that state or the extent to which BLM is complying with agreed-upon fund allocations among the four participating agencies. Of the revenue generated by FLTFA sales, the agencies have agreed to allocate 60 percent to BLM, 20 percent to the Forest Service, and 10 percent each to the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Park Service.