Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act Restrictions and ...

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
Page 6 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management