Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act Restrictions and ...

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withdrawn because it did not meet FLTFA criteria, one is pending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
Page 7 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management