Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act Restrictions and ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

inholdings. We found no such mechanism or procedure at the national level. While the state-level agreements do establish a process for reviewing proposed acquisitions, six minimally elaborate and three do not elaborate on the basic FLTFA criteria: the date the inholding was established, the extent to which the acquisition will facilitate management efficiency, 24 and other criteria the Secretaries consider appropriate. One exception to this is the Nevada state-level agreement. Because the agencies involved in SNPLMA had already developed an interagency agreement to implement that act, they modified that agreement to include FLTFA. The Nevada agreement is generally more detailed than other state agreements and includes more criteria for considering land acquisitions because of the differences between the SNPLMA and FLTFA land acquisition authorities. Also, unlike the other state agreements, the Nevada agreement uses a quantitative system to rank acquisitions. Table 9 is a summary of criteria each state-level agreement includes beyond the FLTFA criteria for acquisition nominations. Table 9: Additional Criteria Contained in FLTFA State-Level Agreements beyond Those Criteria Established under the Act Criteria Contributes toward the preservation of Estimated post- Completeness of a specially acquisition Availability of nomination Local Agency designated management State agreement funding package support prioritization species costs Other Arizona X X California X X X X Colorado X X X Idaho Montana X X X X Nevada X X X X X a New Mexico Oregon/Washington X X X Utah X X X Wyoming X X X Source: FLTFA state-level implementation agreements. 24 BLM’s FLTFA program lead stated that the program’s emphasis on inholdings naturally addresses the management efficiency criterion because the acquisition of inholdings reduces the cost and burden of managing the public land around an inholding. Page 43 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management
The Agencies Have Yet to Establish Effective Procedures to Fully Comply with FLTFA and MOU Provisions a Three additional criteria are included in the Nevada state-level implementation agreement: (1) preserves a significant natural, aesthetic or scientific feature; (2) preserves significant historic, paleontological, or cultural site; and (3) enhances recreational opportunities or improves public access to recreational opportunities. When the agencies decided in 2006 to use the Secretaries’ discretionary authority to make the initial FLTFA acquisitions, officials from all four agencies told us they generally relied on acquisition proposals previously identified for LWCF funding to quickly identify the parcels to acquire. 25 The agencies have systems to identify and set priorities for land acquisitions under LWCF. These existing systems could serve as a basis for systematically identifying and ranking FLTFA-eligible land for future acquisitions. 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. 26 The BLM FLTFA program lead said BLM considers this requirement when making land acquisition decisions but has not established a system to track it. The program lead noted that the requirement to use 80 percent for inholdings is hard to track, as the act is written, because the acquisition proposals are submitted in a piecemeal fashion. 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. 27 The BLM FLTFA program lead told us the MOU allocations should be treated as a target or a goal on a national basis and they do not apply within a state. However, officials from the BLM Division of Business Services and BLM’s Budget Office told us there is no mechanism to track these allocations and were unable to tell us whether the allocations should be followed at the state or national level. Knowing 25 The BLM FLTFA program lead said that the criteria for acquisitions under LWCF are generally broad enough to include the criteria under FLTFA. 26 BLM’s Assistant Director for Minerals, Realty, and Resource Protection confirmed that FLTFA “provides for two separate categories of lands...that can be purchased”—inholdings and adjacent lands—and funds must be used within these parameters. 27 The MOU also states that the Secretaries “may mutually decide to allocate funds to a specific acquisition project, notwithstanding [these fund allocations].” Page 44 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management
Page 1 and 2: GAO February 2008 GAO-08-196 United
Page 3 and 4: Contents Letter 1 Results in Brief
Page 5 and 6: Abbreviations BLM Bureau of Land Ma
Page 7 and 8: providing security, and protecting
Page 9 and 10: evenue to acquire specific parcels
Page 11 and 12: BLM faces several challenges to rai
Page 13 and 14: Background Federal Land Sales Autho
Page 15 and 16: Federal Land Acquisition Funding ti
Page 17 and 18: FLTFA Requirements on Use of Revenu
Page 19 and 20: BLM Has Raised Most FLTFA Revenue f
Page 21 and 22: Figure 3: FLTFA Revenue by Fiscal Y
Page 23 and 24: BLM Faces Several Challenges to Fut
Page 25 and 26: Most BLM States Have Planned FLTFA
Page 27 and 28: Figure 5: BLM “North Fork” 167-
Page 29 and 30: FLTFA’s Restriction on Land Avail
Page 31 and 32: Agencies Have Purchased Few Parcels
Page 33 and 34: Table 4: Status of FLTFA Land Acqui
Page 35 and 36: Figure 7: Part of an Inholding in t
Page 37 and 38: Agency State Federally designated a
Page 39 and 40: The nomination that was withdrawn b
Page 41 and 42: State-Level Process Has Not Yet Res
Page 43 and 44: BLM Reports Spending $3.2 Million o
Page 45 and 46: Agencies Face Challenges in Complet
Page 47: Compliance with Specific Provisions
Page 51 and 52: Matters for Congressional Considera
Page 53 and 54: If you or your staff have questions
Page 55 and 56: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Page 57 and 58: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Page 59 and 60: Appendix II: Completed FLTFA Land S
Page 69 and 70: Appendix III: Detailed Information
Page 71 and 72: Appendix III: Detailed Information
Page 73 and 74: Appendix IV: Comments from the Depa
Page 75 and 76: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff A

Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act Restrictions and ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?