United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters 

FEDERAL LAND 

MANAGEMENT 

Federal Land 

Transaction 

Facilitation Act 

Restrictions and 

Management 

Weaknesses Limit 

Future Sales and 

Acquisitions 

February 2008 

GAO-08-196 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on GAO-08-196. 

For more information, contact Robin M. 

Nazzaro at (202) 512-3841 or 

nazzaror@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-08-196, a report to 

congressional requesters 

February 2008

FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT 

Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act Restrictions

and Management Weaknesses Limit Future Sales and 

Acquisitions

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. 

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 Recommends

If Congress decides to reauthorize 

FLTFA, GAO recommends that it 

consider including additional lands 

for sale and greater flexibility for 

acquisitions. GAO also 

recommends that the agencies take 

actions to better manage the 

FLTFA program. Interior generally 

concurred with GAO’s findings and 

recommendations; Agriculture 

made no comment. 
Contents 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 5

Background 8 

BLM Has Raised Most FLTFA Revenue from Land Sales in Nevada 14 

BLM Faces Several Challenges to Future Sales under FLTFA 18 

Agencies Have Purchased Few Parcels with FLTFA Revenue 26 

Agencies Face Challenges in Completing Additional Acquisitions 40 

Conclusions 45 

Matters for Congressional Consideration 46 

Recommendations for Executive Action 47 

Agency Comments 47 

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 49 

Appendix II Completed FLTFA Land Sales, through May 2007 53 

Appendix III Detailed Information on Planned FLTFA Land Sales 

through 2010, as Reported by BLM State Offices 63 

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of the Interior 67 

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 70 

Tables 

Table 1: BLM Reported FLTFA Cumulative Revenue from Sales by 

State, July 25, 2000, through May 31, 2007 15 

Table 2: Number of Sales and Revenue Raised by Competitive, 

Modified Competitive, and Direct Sales under FLTFA, as of 

May 31, 2007 18 

Table 3: BLM Reported Planned FLTFA Sales, through 2010 21 

Table 4: Status of FLTFA Land Acquisition Projects Approved 

under the Secretarial Initiative, as of January 23, 2008 28 

Page i GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
Table 5: FLTFA Land Acquisition Nominations Reviewed by StateLevel Interagency Teams, as of May 31, 2007a

 31 

Table 6: Completion of FLTFA Implementation Agreements and 

Federal Register Notifications by State 37 

Table 7: BLM Reported Administrative Expenditures by State, 

 July 25, 2000, through July 20, 2007 38 

Table 8: FLTFA Administrative Expenditures by Type, as of July 20, 

2007 39 

Table 9: Additional Criteria Contained in FLTFA State-Level 

Agreements beyond Those Criteria Established under the 

Act 43 

Table 10: The Seven BLM Field Offices Selected That Have 

Generated 97 Percent of FLTFA Revenue, as of May 31, 

2007 51 

Table 11: The Eleven BLM Field Offices Selected That Had Not 

Conducted a Competitive Sale under FLTFA, as of May 31, 

2007 52 

Figures 

Figure 1: LWCF Land Acquisition Appropriations, Fiscal Year 2001 

through Fiscal Year 2006 11 

Figure 2: Requirements for Using FLTFA Revenue 12 

Figure 3: FLTFA Revenue by Fiscal Year, through May 31, 2007 16 

Figure 4: Two BLM Parcels Near Carson City, Nevada, Sold for a 

Total of $24.5 Million 17 

Figure 5: BLM “North Fork” 167-Acre Parcel on the Eastern Edge of 

Las Cruces, New Mexico, Planned for Competitive Sale in 

an April 2008 Auction 22 

Figure 6: A View of the West Mesa BLM Property in Las Cruces, 

New Mexico, That Will Be Added to Land Designated for 

Disposal in the Revised Land Use Plan 26 

Figure 7: Part of an Inholding in the BLM La Cienega Area of 

Critical Environmental Concern That Has Been Acquired 

with FLTFA Funding 30 

Figure 8: Photograph and Location of the 80-Acre Pine Creek State 

Park Inholding Approved as an FLTFA-Funded 

Acquisition at $16 Million 33 

Figure 9: The 320-Acre Winter’s Ranch FLTFA Acquisition 

Nomination in Nevada, Valued at $29 Million 35 

Figure 10: FLTFA Administrative Expenditures, July 25, 2000, 

through July 20, 2007 39 

Page ii GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
Abbreviations 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 

FLTFA Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act of 2000 

LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund 

MOU memorandum of understanding 

SNPLMA Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 

Page iii GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

February 5, 2008 

The Honorable Norman D. Dicks 

Chairman 

The Honorable Todd Tiahrt 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives 

The four major federal land management agencies—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—administer approximately 628 million acres, 

or about 28 percent of the land area in the United States. These public 

lands are mostly in the 11 western states and Alaska, where the four 

agencies manage lands that constitute significant portions of the states’ 

acreage, ranging from about 28 percent in Washington state to about 81 

percent in Nevada. These lands have multiple uses, from preserving 

cultural and natural treasures to accommodating the development of 

resources, such as oil and gas, among other things. Historically, many 

controversies have arisen over the agencies’ management of these lands, 

including the selling of federal land and the purchasing of private land. In 

these controversies, the agencies have had to balance the need to protect 

resources in the land they manage with the need to respect the rights of 

private landowners. 

One particularly controversial issue has been managing federal lands with 

inholdings, which are nonfederal lands within the boundaries of national 

parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and other designated areas. In 2005, the 

agencies estimated there were at least 70 million acres of inholdings 

within the lands they manage.1

 Inholdings can create significant 

management problems for federal agencies in maintaining boundaries, 

 

1

U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Land 

Acquisition Plan (Washington, D.C., February 2005). The agencies estimated the following 

acres of inholdings: National Park Service—6.5 million acres; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service—17.3 million acres; Forest Service—about 40 million acres; and BLM—over 7 

million acres within national monuments and national conservation areas and several 

million more in other areas. 

Page 1 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
providing security, and protecting resources, among other things. The 

federal land management agencies have had the authority to acquire 

inholdings, but have had limited funding for exercising this authority. 

Congress enacted the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act of 2000 

(FLTFA), in part, to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of federal 

land management by allowing the four land management agencies to 

acquire inholdings to promote the consolidation of ownership of public 

and private lands in a manner that would allow for better overall resource 

management.2

 Revenue generated by the sale or exchange of public lands 

under FLTFA has created another funding source available to the four 

agencies to acquire land when appropriations for acquisitions have been 

declining.3

 These funds are available to the agencies without further 

appropriation. 

BLM, which manages approximately 256 million acres of federal land, is 

authorized to sell or exchange land identified in its land use plans;4, 5

 the 

other three land management agencies have limited or no sales authority. 

Therefore, the funds for FLTFA acquisitions must come from the revenue 

generated by BLM sales or equalization payments derived from exchanges. 

BLM may dispose of land that meets certain criteria, including land that is 

difficult to manage, no longer needed, or needed for community 

expansion. Thus, when BLM sells land, the sale generates revenue and 

reduces the burden on its land managers to accomplish such tasks as 

monitoring scattered acreage and boundaries. 

Once BLM has sold land, FLTFA directs BLM to deposit the revenue 

generated from these transactions into a special U.S. Treasury account 

 

2

Pub. L. 106-248 (2000) (codified as 43 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq). 

3

Land exchanges sometimes result in the exchange of unequally valued land. In such cases, 

the nonfederal entity generally pays the difference to the federal agency in the form of a 

cash equalization payment. Proceeds from such transactions involving FLTFA-eligible 

lands are deposited into the FLTFA account. 

4

The authority is provided in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 

1976 (Pub. L. 94-579) (1976) (codified at 43 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq.). FLPMA defines the 11 

contiguous western states as Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New 

Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming (43 U.S.C. 1702, § 103 (o)). BLM’s Alaska 

State Office is not currently participating in FLTFA because of its priority to settle Alaska 

Native land claims. 

5

BLM land use plans may also be called “resource management plans” and “management 

framework plans.” We will refer to them as land use plans, the term used in FLTFA. 

Page 2 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
created by FLTFA.6

 However, the act limits the revenue deposited into this 

account to that generated from sales or exchanges of public lands 

identified for disposal in a land use plan in effect as of July 25, 2000—the 

date of FLTFA’s enactment. Money in the new account is available to BLM 

and the other three agencies to purchase inholdings, and in some cases, 

land adjacent to federally designated areas and containing exceptional 

resources.7

 The act expires in July 2010, and the Administration has 

proposed revising and extending it. 

BLM sells its land in one of three ways: competitive sales; modified 

competitive sales, which provide a preference to existing land users or 

adjoining landowners; and direct sales, which occur in special situations, 

such as when parcels are completely surrounded by one landowner and 

there is no public access. BLM prefers competitive sales because these 

usually generate the most revenue and, therefore, are more likely to 

increase the revenue available under FLTFA for land acquisitions. BLM 

staff in headquarters, its 12 state offices, and 144 field offices nationwide 

manage and conduct these sales.8

 About 300 full-time equivalent staff, out 

of a workforce of about 10,500 full-time equivalent staff, are responsible 

for land and realty management in BLM. These staff are directly 

responsible for land sales and acquisitions, along with other realty 

responsibilities, such as processing energy rights-of-way and leasing and 

permitting on public lands. 

The federal land agencies have two methods for identifying land to acquire 

under FLTFA. First, the agencies can nominate parcels through a process 

laid out in state-level implementation agreements that were developed 

under the direction of a national memorandum of understanding (MOU) 

that implemented the program. Under the process, state-level interagency 

teams are to review proposals for land acquisitions and forward their 

nominations to the Secretaries of Agriculture and of the Interior for 

approval. Second, the Secretaries can directly use a portion of FLTFA 

 

6

This new account is referred to in the act as the Federal Land Disposal Account. Before 

FLTFA, revenue from these transactions were typically deposited into the U.S. Treasury’s 

general account. 

7

According to the act (43 U.S.C. 2302), the term ‘‘exceptional resource’’ means a resource of 

scientific, natural, historic, cultural, or recreational value that has been documented by a 

federal, state, or local governmental authority, and for which there is a compelling need for 

conservation and protection under the jurisdiction of a Federal agency in order to maintain 

the resource for the benefit of the public. 

8

For this report, “field offices” refers to BLM’s 26 district offices and 118 field offices. 

Page 3 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
revenue to acquire specific parcels of land at their own discretion. The 

national MOU laid out the expectation that most acquisitions would occur 

through the state-level process. 

FLTFA places several restrictions on using funds from the new U.S. 

Treasury account. Among other things, FLTFA requires that (1) no more 

than 20 percent can be used for BLM’s administrative and other activities 

necessary to carry out the land disposal program; (2) of the amount not 

spent on administrative expenses, at least 80 percent of the revenue must 

be expended in the state in which the funds were generated; and (3) at 

least 80 percent of FLTFA revenue required to be spent on land 

acquisitions within a state must be used to acquire inholdings (as opposed 

to adjacent land) within that state. In addition, the national MOU sets the 

allocation of funds from the FLTFA account for each agency—60 percent 

for BLM, 20 percent for the Forest Service, and 10 percent each for the 

Fish and Wildlife Service and the Park Service, but the Secretaries may 

vary from these allocations by mutual agreement. 

With FLTFA expiring in July 2010, you asked us to (1) determine the 

extent to which BLM has generated revenue for the FLTFA program, (2) 

identify challenges BLM faces in conducting future sales, (3) determine the 

extent to which agencies have spent funds under FLTFA, and (4) identify 

challenges the agencies face in conducting future acquisitions. 

To address these objectives, we reviewed FLTFA, other applicable 

authorities, and agency guidance, and interviewed FLTFA program leads 

at the four agencies’ headquarters, officials with Interior’s Office of the 

Solicitor, and officials with the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Land 

and Minerals Management on FLTFA implementation. We also obtained 

and analyzed data from BLM’s Division of Business Services on program 

revenue and expenditures and visited the Division of Business Services 

accounting officials in Lakewood, Colorado, to discuss the management of 

the FLTFA account. 9 We conducted semistructured interviews and 

collected data from (1) the 10 BLM state officials responsible for the 

FLTFA program in their office on the program’s status, completed and 

planned FLTFA land sales and acquisitions, and the challenges faced in 

 

9

Effective October 1, 2007, a reorganization of the BLM centers in Denver merged the 

National Business Center, National Human Resources Management Center, National 

Information Resources Management Center, and National Science and Technology Center 

into a single unit called the National Operations Center. The National Business Center is 

now known as the Division of Business Services. 

Page 4 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
conducting sales and acquiring land; (2) officials at the 7 BLM field offices 

that have raised 97 percent of the FLTFA revenue; and (3) a 

nongeneralizable sample of 11 of the 137 remaining BLM district and field 

offices that had not conducted a competitive sale under FLTFA as of May 

31, 2007 to determine why such sales have generally not occurred and 

challenges faced to conducting future sales. With regard to acquisitions, 

we reviewed available documentation for land acquisition proposals 

considered by the 10 FLTFA interagency teams at the state level, agency 

headquarters, and the Secretaries of Agriculture and of the Interior. During 

our visits to BLM state offices (California, Nevada, New Mexico, and 

Oregon) and field offices (Carson City, Nevada, and Las Cruces, New 

Mexico), we interviewed officials and visited planned land acquisition 

sites to learn about the details of the land acquisition process. A more 

detailed description of our scope and methodology is presented in 

appendix I. We performed our work between November 2006 and 

February 2008 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Since FLTFA was enacted in 2000, BLM has raised $95.7 million in 

revenue, mostly from 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. Revenue grew slowly during the first years of the program and 

peaked in fiscal year 2006, when a total of $71.1 million was generated. 

BLM’s Nevada office accounts for the lion’s share of the sales because (1) 

demand for land to develop has been high in rapidly expanding population 

centers such as Las Vegas, (2) BLM has a high percentage land in 

proximity to these centers, and (3) BLM has experience selling land under 

another federal land sales program authorized for southern Nevada. More 

specifically, the Carson City and Las Vegas Field Offices generated a total 

of $86.2 million, or 90 percent of all revenue generated under FLTFA, 

mostly through a few competitive sales. As of May 31, 2007, BLM offices 

covering three other states—New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington—have 

raised over $1 million each, and the remaining seven BLM state offices—

Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming—had 

each raised less than $1 million. Most BLM field offices have not generated 

revenue under FLTFA. 

Results in Brief 

Page 5 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
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 
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 
addition, we are making five recommendations to the Secretaries to better 

manage and oversee the FLTFA program, such as developing goals for 

FLTFA sales and a strategy to implement them. In commenting on a draft 

of this report the Department of the Interior generally concurred with our 

findings and recommendations, stating that it will implement all of the 

recommendations. Their comments are presented in appendix IV of this 

report. In addition, Interior and the Department of Agriculture provided 

technical comments on the draft report, which we have incorporated as 

appropriate. 

FLTFA, commonly called the “Baca Act,”10 provides for the use of revenue 

from the sale or exchange of BLM land identified for disposal under land 

use plans in effect as of the date of its enactment—July 25, 2000. The act 

does not apply to land identified for disposal after its enactment, such as 

through a land use plan amendment approved after that date. Revenue 

generated under FLTFA are available to the Secretaries of Agriculture and 

of the Interior for acquiring inholdings within certain federally designated 

areas, or land adjacent to those areas and containing exceptional 

resources, and for administrative and other expenses necessary to carry 

out the land disposal program under the FLTFA. 

To implement FLTFA, BLM has designated a program lead realty specialist 

in headquarters, in each state office involved, and in each field office 

within those states. The program lead duties are sometimes split between 

land and realty staff who specialize in sales and others who specialize in 

the acquisition process. In addition, to facilitate the use of FLTFA funds 

for acquisition, the other three agencies sharing in the revenue, the Forest 

Service, the Park Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service, have also 

designated realty staff to participate in interagency groups to decide on 

acquisitions in each BLM state. BLM manages the FLTFA account through 

its Division of Business Services. 

Although FLTFA authorizes proceeds from eligible land sales and 

exchanges to be used in acquiring land, it does not provide any new sales 

authority. The sales authority, as stated in FLTFA, is provided by the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). FLPMA 

Background 

Federal Land Sales 

Authorities and Process 

 

10This refers to Title I of Pub. L. 106-248, which provides for the federal acquisition of the 

Baca Ranch in New Mexico. FLTFA is Title II of this act. 

Page 8 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to dispose of certain federal 

lands—through sale and exchange, among other disposal methods—and 

authorizes the Secretaries of Agriculture and of the Interior to acquire 

certain nonfederal lands. FLPMA also authorizes the Secretary of 

Agriculture to exchange land. FLPMA requires the Secretary of the Interior 

to develop land use plans to determine which lands are eligible for 

disposal and acquisition. The level of specificity differs in land use plans, 

from describing general areas to naming specific parcels. In developing 

these land use plans, agencies must work closely with federal, state, and 

local governments and allow for public participation. Land use plans are 

typically revised every 15 to 20 years to address changing land use 

conditions in the area covered. 

Sales and acquisitions must comply with requirements of FLPMA and 

other applicable laws, which can require, among other things, an 

assessment of the environmental impacts of the proposed land 

transaction, assessment of natural and cultural resources, preparation of 

appraisals, and public involvement. Furthermore, with regard to land sales 

specifically, FLPMA requires that land be sold at the appraised fair market 

value or higher. 

Although BLM policy states that competitive sales are preferred when a 

number of parties are interested in bidding on a parcel for sale, regulations 

for the FLPMA land sales authority provide for other methods of sale 

when certain criteria are met. The regulations state that modified 

competitive sales may be used to permit the current grazing user or 

adjoining landowner to meet the high bid at the public sale. This 

procedure allows for limited competitive sales to protect ongoing uses, to 

assure compatibility of the possible uses with adjacent land, and to avoid 

dislocating current users. The regulations state that a direct sale may be 

used when the land offered for sale is completely surrounded by land in 

one ownership with no public access, when the land is needed by state or 

local governments or nonprofit corporations, or when the land is 

necessary to protect current equities in the land or resolve inadvertent 

unauthorized use or occupancy of the land. 

In completing the steps necessary to purchase land, third-party 

organizations, such as The Nature Conservancy and The Trust for Public 

Land, often provide assistance to the federal government. For example, 

third parties may assist by purchasing desired land for eventual resale to 

the federal government or by negotiating an option with the seller to 

purchase land within a specified period of time, which provides additional 

Page 9 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
time for the federal agency to secure necessary funding for the purchase 

or to comply with laws and regulations governing the acquisition. 

Federal Land Acquisition 

Funding 

The primary source for land acquisition funding for BLM, the Park Service, 

the Forest Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service, has traditionally 

been the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which was created 

to help preserve, develop, and assure access to outdoor recreation 

resources.11 To receive LWCF funding, the agencies independently identify 

and set priorities for land acquisitions and then submit their list of priority 

acquisitions in their annual budget request to Congress. LWCF funding is 

available for land acquisition purposes only if appropriated by Congress, 

unlike the funds in the FLTFA account, which are available without 

further appropriation. 

LWCF land acquisition appropriations have been declining in recent years. 

Specifically, funds for the four agencies declined from $453.4 million 

appropriated in fiscal year 2001 to $120.1 million appropriated in fiscal 

year 2006, as depicted in figure 1.12 BLM has traditionally received the 

lowest amount of LWCF land acquisition funding among the four agencies. 

For example, in fiscal year 2006, BLM’s share of total appropriated LWCF 

land acquisition funding was only $8.6 million, or about 7 percent of the 

total appropriation.13 BLM’s land sales eligible under FLTFA have created 

another funding source for the four agencies to acquire land. FLTFA 

provides that if all funds in the account are not used by the sunset date in 

2010, they will become available for appropriation under section 3 of the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. 

 

11The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 established the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund (Pub. L. 88-578). Among other sources of land acquisition funding is the 

Migratory Bird Fund used exclusively by the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

12The LWCF is a trust fund that accumulates revenue from federal outdoor recreation user 

fees, the federal motorboat fuel tax, and surplus property sales. To supplement these 

sources to reach its annual authorized level of $900 million, the fund accumulates revenue 

from oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf. 

13By comparison, in fiscal year 2006, Congress appropriated $41.8 million, or about 35 

percent, to the Forest Service; $34.4 million, or about 29 percent, to the Park Service; $28.0 

million, or about 23 percent, to the Fish and Wildlife Service; and $7.3 million, or about 6 

percent, for U.S. Department of the Interior appraisal services. 

Page 10 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
Figure 1: LWCF Land Acquisition Appropriations, Fiscal Year 2001 through Fiscal 

Year 2006 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Dollars in millions

Source: GAO analysis of Congressional Research Service data.

Fiscal year

Other Land Sale Laws Other laws allow BLM to retain certain proceeds from federal land sales 

and share them among agencies for land acquisitions, as well as other 

purposes. The most notable of these is the Southern Nevada Public Land 

Management Act of 1998 (SNPLMA).14 SNPLMA’s stated purpose is to 

“provide for the orderly disposal of certain federal lands in Clark County, 

Nevada, and to provide for the acquisition of environmentally sensitive 

land in the State of Nevada.”15 Since enactment, SNPLMA has generated 

just under $3 billion in revenue. As of September 2007, a portion of this 

revenue has been spent, in part, to complete 41 land acquisition projects in 

Nevada for a total of $129.1 million. Unlike FLTFA, SNPLMA has no 

expiration date and its sales receipts are placed in an interest bearing 

account. However, it has fewer acres available for disposal than FLTFA. 

 

14Pub. L. 105-263, 112 Stat. 2343 (1998), as amended. Other acts include the Lincoln County 

Land Act of 2000, Pub. L. 106-298, as amended by Pub. L. 108-424 (2004); and the White Pine 

County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2006, Title III, Pub. L. 109-432. 

15SNPLMA also authorizes the expenditure of funds on additional categories, such as 

certain capital improvements; development of a multispecies habitat plan in Clark County, 

Nevada; and development of parks, trails, and natural areas in Clark County, Nevada. 

Page 11 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
FLTFA places a number of requirements on the use of revenue generated 

under the act. Among these requirements, BLM must provide 4 percent of 

sale proceeds to the state in which revenue was raised for education and 

transportation purposes.16 Figure 2 illustrates these requirements using an 

example of $1 million in revenue. 

FLTFA Requirements on 

Use of Revenue and Other 

Key Provisions 

Figure 2: Requirements for Using FLTFA Revenue 

FLTFA Revenue

(Example $1,000,000)

96 percent deposited into 

FLTFA account

($960,000)

At least 80 percent for land acquisitions

($768,000)

No more than 20 percent for administrative 

costs to prepare FLTFA-eligible sales

($192,000)

4 percent paid to state

($40,000)

At least 80 percent to be 

used in the state

($614,400)

No more than 20 percent to be 

used outside out of the state

($153,600)

At least 80 percent of which must be 

for the purchase of inholdings

($491,520)

Source: GAO analysis of FLTFA and BLM’s Instruction Memorandum No. 2007-205, September 25, 2007.

Note: With the exception of the amount designated for inholdings, the steps depicted in this figure 

under the 96 percent deposited into the FLTFA account are subactivity accounts established in BLM’s 

Federal Financial System to record the fund allocations as authorized by FLTFA. 

 

16See Pub. L. 136, August 31, 1951 (65 Stat. 248, 252). 

Page 12 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
FLTFA also limits land acquisitions to land within and adjacent to 

federally designated areas, such as national parks, national forests, and 

national conservation areas. While most lands managed by the Fish and 

Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, and the Park Service are federally 

designated areas, many of the lands managed by BLM are not federally 

designated areas; therefore, acquisitions within undesignated lands would 

not qualify under FLTFA. 

Furthermore, FLTFA requires that the Secretaries establish a procedure to 

identify and set priorities for acquiring inholdings. As part of this process, 

it called for the Secretaries to consider (1) the date the inholding was 

established, (2) the extent to which the acquisition would facilitate 

management efficiency, and (3) other criteria identified by the Secretaries. 

The act also requires a public notice be published in the Federal Register

detailing the procedures for identifying inholdings and setting priorities for 

them and other information about the program. 

To improve FLTFA implementation, the four agencies signed a national 

MOU. Among other things, the MOU established a Land Transaction 

Facilitation Council, which consists of the heads of the four agencies and 

the U.S. Department of the Interior Assistant Secretary for Policy, 

Management, and Budget to oversee the implementation and coordination 

of activities undertaken pursuant to the MOU. The MOU also directed the 

agencies to establish state-level implementation plans that would establish 

roles and responsibilities, procedures for interagency coordination, and 

field-level processes for identifying land acquisition recommendations and 

setting priorities for these recommendations. 

The Administration has proposed revising and extending the act. 

Specifically, the U.S. Department of the Interior’s fiscal year 2007 and 2008 

budgets included proposals to 

Memorandum of 

Understanding Implements 

FLTFA 

Proposed Amendments to 

FLTFA 

• allow BLM to use updated land use plans to identify areas suitable for 

disposal, 

• allow a portion of receipts to be used by BLM for restoration projects, 

• require BLM to return 70 percent of net proceeds from eligible sales to the 

U.S. Treasury, and 

Page 13 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
• cap retention of receipts at $60 million per year. 

In addition, the U.S. Department of the Interior called for Congress to 

extend the FLTFA program to 2018. 

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. 

Between July 2000 and May 2007, BLM raised $95.7 million in revenue for 

selling 16,659 acres, according to data verified by BLM state offices. In 

addition, the BLM Division of Business Services reports exchange 

equalization payments totaling $3.4 million. Nevada has accounted for the 

great majority of the sales. As of May 2007, about 92 percent of the 

revenue raised, or $88 million, has come from land transactions in Nevada. 

More specifically, the Carson City and Las Vegas field offices generated a 

total of $86.2 million, or 90 percent of all revenue generated under FLTFA, 

mostly through a few competitive sales. For example, the Carson City 

Field Office raised $39.1 million through 3 sales and Las Vegas Field Office 

raised $33.6 million through 7 sales. Table 1 shows the state-by-state totals 

of sales revenue generated, acres sold, and number of sales. See appendix 

II for a listing of completed sales BLM state offices have reported to us. 

BLM Has Raised Most 

FLTFA Revenue from 

Land Sales in Nevada 

BLM Has Raised $95.7 

Million from FLTFA Land 

Sales, Primarily in Two 

Nevada Field Offices 

Page 14 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
Table 1: BLM Reported FLTFA Cumulative Revenue from Sales by State, July 25, 

2000, through May 31, 2007 

State 

Cumulative sales 

revenue 

Acres

 sold

Number of 

sales

Arizona 54,102 28 2

California 235,010 215 10

Colorado 939,856 243 25

Idaho 180,740 206 9

Montana 59,000 53 3

Nevada 88,010,041 5,399 106

New Mexico 4,052,800 778 14

Oregon (includes Washington 

state) 1,103,485 8,501 82

Utah 177,000 26 1

Wyoming 840,085 1,209 13

Total $95,652,119 16,659 265

Source: GAO analysis of BLM Division of Business Services data verified by BLM state offices. 

Notes: Numbers may not add due to rounding. The revenue numbers provided in this table are before 

the 4 percent payment to states has been deducted and include only land sale revenue. The Division 

of Business Services reports exchange equalization payments in these states totaling about $3.4 

million, which are also available for FLTFA land acquisitions. 

Some of BLM’s Nevada field offices, particularly Las Vegas and Carson 

City, have been in a unique position to raise the most funds under FLTFA 

to date because of rapidly expanding populations, development in those 

areas, and the availability of nearby BLM land. In addition, BLM Nevada 

staff had previous experience with SNPLMA, the land sales program in the 

Las Vegas area. In fact, the Nevada office used procedures and staff from 

this program to initiate FLTFA’s sales and acquisition programs. According 

to Nevada state office officials, BLM’s annual work plan for lands and 

realty work specifically directed the Nevada office to continue to hold 

FLTFA and SNPLMA land sales as appropriate. 

Revenue from land sales and exchanges under FLTFA grew slowly in the 

first years of the program but picked up in fiscal years 2004 and 2005, with 

$16.6 million and $4.8 million, respectively. Revenue reached a peak in 

fiscal year 2006, when a total of $71.1 million was collected. BLM officials 

said the land sales market in Nevada has cooled since its peak in 2006. 

Figure 3 shows the FLTFA revenue through May 2007. 

Page 15 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
Figure 3: FLTFA Revenue by Fiscal Year, through May 31, 2007 

Notes: Fiscal year 2007 reflects revenue collected through May 31. Since buyers have 180 days to 

make final payment, some collections are for sales that occurred in the prior fiscal year. Because the 

FLTFA account was not established until February 2002, funds collected from sales and exchanges 

in FY 2000 and FY 2001 are included in FY 2002. In addition, we aggregated the revenue for each 

sale as of the most recent collection date (e.g., if a particular land sale had collections in 2003 and 

2004, the total amount collected was included in the 2004 total). 

The FLTFA account benefits from the proceeds of all types of 

transactions, including land exchanges and land sales made on a 

competitive, modified competitive, or direct basis. BLM sets the appraised 

fair market value as the sales price for direct sales and as the minimum bid 

price for competitive sales. Of the 265 completed sales reported by BLM 

state offices, 149 were competitive, 33 were modified competitive, and 83 

were direct. In terms of FLTFA revenue, the great majority, about 96 

percent, has been raised from competitive sales. For example, in 

December 2005, the Las Vegas Field Office sold a 40-acre parcel through a 

competitive auction for $7.3 million, or 152 percent of its appraised fair 

market value of $4.8 million. On a much smaller scale in a December 2006 

competitive auction, the Burns District Office in Oregon sold 240 acres for 

$47,000, or 163 percent of its appraised fair market value of $28,800. In 

2006, the Carson City Field Office offered two parcels of about 100 and 106 

acres with appraised fair market values of $10 million and $6.4 million, 

respectively, in north Douglas County, Nevada, just south of the Carson 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Dollars in millions

Source: GAO analysis of BLM’s Division of Business Services data verified by BLM state offices.

Fiscal year

Page 16 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
City limits. The former BLM parcels are contiguous and across a major 

highway from three shopping centers. Through competitive auctions, BLM 

received final prices of $16.1 million and $8.4 million, or 161 and 131 

percent, respectively, of appraised value. Figure 4 shows areas in these 

two parcels. 

Figure 4: Two BLM Parcels Near Carson City, Nevada, Sold for a Total of $24.5 Million 

Source: BLM Carson City Field Office.

Notes: In the 106-acre parcel on the left, the area left of the roadway was zoned for commercial 

development. In the 100-acre parcel on the right, the land to the right of the roadway was zoned 

primarily for residential development. 

According to a GAO analysis of data from BLM’s Division of Business 

Services and BLM state offices on land sales revenue collected in the 

FLTFA account, only 12 of 144 field offices have conducted competitive 

sales. An additional 28 field offices have generated FLTFA revenue 

through direct or modified competitive sales. The remaining 104 offices 

have not generated sales revenue for the FLTFA account. Table 2 shows 

FLTFA sales by the method used and the amount of revenue generated. 

Page 17 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
Table 2: Number of Sales and Revenue Raised by Competitive, Modified 

Competitive, and Direct Sales under FLTFA, as of May 31, 2007 

Dollars in millions 

Method 

Number of 

sales

Revenue 

collected 

Number of field 

offices reporting

Competitive 149 $91.4 12

Modified competitive 33 1.0 6

Direct 83 3.2 33

Total 265 $95.7 a

Source: GAO analysis of BLM’s Division of Business Services data verified by BLM state offices. 

Note: Revenue column does not add due to rounding. 

a

No total reported because each field office may use more than one method of sale. 

Using the data provided by BLM state offices on completed FLTFA sales as 

of May 31, 2007, we determined that the actual sales prices of the parcels 

sold exceeded the appraised fair market value of those parcels by 52 

percent. 

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. Goals are an 

effective management tool for measuring and achieving results. Some BLM 

state offices reported that they have planned FLTFA sales through 2010, 

but BLM has no overall implementation strategy to generate funds to 

purchase inholdings, as mandated by FLTFA. Since BLM has not laid out a 

clear roadmap for FLTFA and did not make land sales a priority, it is 

difficult to determine if BLM took full advantage of the opportunities for 

generating revenue under the act. Second, BLM has revised some of its 

land use plans since 2000 and identified additional land for disposal. 

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. 

BLM Faces Several 

Challenges to Future 

Sales under FLTFA 

Page 18 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
According to BLM state and field officials, they face five challenges to 

raising FLTFA revenue through sales. First, the most frequently identified 

is the availability of knowledgeable realty staff to conduct the sales. This 

challenge is followed, in order of frequency cited, by the time, cost, and 

complexity of the land sales process; external factors, such as public 

opposition to a sale; program and legal restrictions; and the land use 

planning process. Except for FLTFA-specific program and legal 

restrictions, the other challenges that BLM state and field offices cited are 

probably faced in many public land sales. The following provides 

examples of these challenges: 

BLM State and Field 

Officials Most Frequently 

Cited Availability of 

Knowledgeable Staff as a 

Challenge to Conducting 

FLTFA Sales 

• The availability of knowledgeable realty staff to conduct the sales. BLM 

staff said realty staff must address higher priority work before land sales. 

For example, Colorado BLM staff said that processing rights-of-way for 

energy pipelines takes a huge amount of realty staff time, 100 percent in 

some field offices, and poses one of the top challenges to carrying out 

FLTFA sales in Colorado. In Idaho, staff also cited the lack of realty 

staffing, which is down 40 percent from 10 years ago. Adding to the 

staffing issue, the workload for energy-related uses in Idaho, such as 

approving rights-of-way for transmission lines, has doubled. Other offices 

cited turnover in staff and the lack of staff with training and experience to 

conduct sales. 

• Time, cost, and complexity of the sales process. Much preparation must 

be completed before a property can be sold. For example, several offices 

cited the cost and length of the process that ensures a sale complies with 

environmental laws and regulations. In addition, obtaining clearances 

from experts related to cultural and natural resources on a proposed sale 

can be time-consuming. For example, in the sale of 396 acres by the Las 

Cruces District Office, officials said that the sale of the property was 

delayed by the discovery of a significant cultural resource on the site. This 

was eventually resolved by BLM retaining the small portion of the original 

parcel containing the cultural resource. 

• External factors. BLM officials cited such factors such as public 

opposition to a sale, market conditions, or lack of political support as 

challenges. For example, Colorado BLM officials said that they have faced 

strong local opposition to sales, and the El Centro Field Office staff in 

California cited the lack of demand for the land from buyers as a 

challenge. Some offices have experienced diminishing support of sales by 

local governments over the time a sale is prepared. 

• Program and legal restrictions. The Arizona State Office staff and the 

Elko Field Office staff cited the sunset date of FLTFA, less than 3 years 

Page 19 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
away, as a challenge because the sunset date may not allow enough time 

to complete many more sales. Other offices said the MOU provision 

requiring a portion of the land sale proceeds to be used by the three other 

agencies reduces BLM’s incentive to do land sales because BLM keeps 

only 60 percent of the revenue. Another challenge to the disposal of land 

under FLTFA, especially in Nevada, has been the passage of land bills for 

Lincoln and White Pine counties.17 The Lincoln County Land Act of 2000, 

as amended, directs BLM to deposit most of the proceeds from the 

disposal of not more than 103,328 acres into an account established by the 

act. The White Pine County Conservation, Recreation, and Development 

Act of 2006 directs BLM to deposit most of the proceeds from the disposal 

of not more than 45,000 acres into a similar account. In total, BLM staff 

estimate that, once mandated land use plan amendments are completed, 

the two acts will result in the removal of about 148,000 acres from FLTFA 

eligibility. 

• Land use planning. Some offices cited problems with the land use plans. 

For example, the Idaho Falls District Office staff said that specific land for 

sale is hard to identify in old land use plans. Nevada’s Elko Field Office 

staff said that some lands that could be offered for sale were not available 

because they were not designated in the land use plan at the time of 

FLTFA’s enactment. 

BLM state offices reported planning FLTFA sales through 2010, but BLM 

has not established national goals for FLTFA or emphasized sales. 

In response to our request to the 10 BLM state offices participating in 

FLTFA, 8 reported planning 96 FLTFA sales totaling 25,406 acres through 

2010. The other two state offices reported no planned sales. Of the 96 

planned sales, 34 are planned as competitive, 6 as modified competitive, 

and 52 as direct sales; the sales methods for 4 sales are unknown. The 

BLM state offices did not report a fair market value for some of these 

planned sales. Table 3 provides information on planned FLTFA sales and 

Most BLM States Have 

Planned FLTFA Sales 

through 2010, but BLM 

Lacks National Goals for 

the Program 

BLM Plans FLTFA Sales 

through 2010 

 

17Pub. L. 106-298: Lincoln County Land Act Of 2000, as amended by Pub. L. 108-424 (2004) 

and Pub. L. 109-432, Title III, White Pine County Conservation, Recreation, and 

Development Act of 2006. 

Page 20 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
appendix III provides a complete listing of the planned sales that BLM 

state offices reported. 

Table 3: BLM Reported Planned FLTFA Sales, through 2010 

BLM state office Competitive Direct

Modified

 competitive Undetermined

Total 

planned sales Total acres

Arizona 3 2 1 2 8 2,640

California 1 4 0 0 5 251

Colorado 1 15 0 1 17 136

Idaho 2 13 1 0 16 4,242

Montana 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nevada 17 7 1 0 25 14,570

New Mexico 7 2 0 0 9 1,273

Oregon/Washington 0 0 0 0 0 0

Utah 1 4 1 0 6 412

Wyoming 2 5 2 1 10 1,880

Total 34 52 6 4 96 25,406

Source: GAO analysis of information reported by BLM state offices. 

Notes: Total acres column does not add due to rounding. An estimate of the expected total revenue 

from these sales was not available because all fair market values were not reported by the state 

offices. 

Figure 5 shows an example of a planned sale—the “North Fork” parcel to 

be sold competitively in April 2008 by the field office in Las Cruces, New 

Mexico. This 167-acre parcel is on the eastern edge of Las Cruces across 

the street from residential subdivisions. BLM also plans to sell a similar 

adjacent 180-acre parcel at the same time. The field office reported that 

the purpose of these sales is to dispose of land that will serve important 

public objectives, including but not limited to, expansion of communities 

and economic development, which cannot be achieved prudently or 

feasibly on land other than public land. 

Page 21 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
Figure 5: BLM “North Fork” 167-Acre Parcel on the Eastern Edge of Las Cruces, 

New Mexico, Planned for Competitive Sale in an April 2008 Auction 

Source: GAO.

Although BLM offices plan sales, there is no assurance that these sales will 

occur. For fiscal years 2004 and 2005, BLM headquarters compiled a list of 

100 planned sales under FLTFA from information the state offices 

provided. Because BLM headquarters did not know the status of these 100 

planned sales, we followed up with the state offices and determined that 

54 were actually completed. According to BLM’s state office leads for 

these sales, 46 properties did not sell for several reasons, such as 

environmental concerns; external factors; the availability of staff; and the 

time, cost, and complexity of the sales. For example, Utah State Office 

officials said a 1,450-acre parcel near St. George did not sell because 

threatened and endangered species and cultural resource issues were 

identified. In Wyoming, state office staff said only one of four proposed 

sales occurred because of inadequate staffing and the competing priority 

to address oil and gas-related realty issues. 

Page 22 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
BLM has established annual goals for the disposal of land through sales or 

other means.18 For example, BLM’s fiscal year 2008 budget justification 

contained a performance target to dispose of 11,500 acres and 30,000 acres 

of land in fiscal years 2007 and 2008, respectively. However, BLM has not 

established similar goals for FLTFA sales. For example, BLM’s fiscal year 

2007 annual work plan for the lands and realty function—which guides the 

activities to be completed in a given year—does not contain specific goals 

for FLTFA. Rather, it states that lands and realty staff should continue to 

hold land sales under FLTFA, especially in Nevada. 

BLM Has Not Established 

Goals or an Implementation 

Strategy for FLTFA Sales 

BLM did provide an estimate in its fiscal year 2008 budget justification for 

FLTFA revenue—$12 million in fiscal year 2007 and $50 million in 2008. 

However, BLM fell short of its estimate for fiscal year 2007; it reported 

generating only $0.7 million from sales and exchanges. Moreover, when we 

asked BLM headquarters staff for the basis of the fiscal year 2007 and 2008 

revenue estimates, they said the estimates were based on professional 

judgment and that they had no supporting information.19

Our interviews with state and field office staff confirmed that there are 

few goals for conducting FLTFA sales. According to 27 of the 28 state and 

field office officials we spoke with, BLM headquarters had not provided 

any goals; one state office said headquarters had emphasized getting their 

land disposal program up and running in their office. According to 18 of 

these 28 officials, their state and field office management had set no 

targets or goals for FLTFA land sales. Of the 10 that did mention such 

goals, 8 described the goal as a plan to sell specific parcels of land. 

According to headquarters officials, BLM has tried to encourage FLTFA 

sales but is not pressuring field offices to conduct them, and there is no 

 

18In 2000, BLM estimated that there were more than 3.3 million acres potentially available 

for disposal. (BLM, “Questions and Answers: Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act, 

Title II, of The Valles Caldera Preservation Act (Baca Ranch, NM)” (April 4, 2003, 

[http://www.blm.gov/nhp/news/releases/pages/2000/valles_QsAs.htm] accessed on 

February 28, 2007). However, the BLM FLTFA program lead said that only a small 

percentage of the land designated for disposal are good candidates for sale because the 

projected revenue from the sale exceeds the cost to conduct the sale. 

19The BLM FLTFA program lead reported more recently that a revised estimate of future 

sales revenue had been prepared for FY 2008 and beyond. The estimate projects an average 

of $7.5 million in annual sales revenue or a total of $82.5 million in revenue from FY 2008 

through FY 2018, with the assumptions that the program will be extended, that revised 

program authority adds to the inventory of land available for sale and that the program is 

made a priority by BLM state directors. 

Page 23 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
ongoing headquarters effort to oversee and manage sales because states 

are responsible for conducting their own sales programs. The realty 

managers explained that headquarters does not approve land sales but is 

aware of them through reviews of Federal Register notices of the sales. 

According to a headquarters official, BLM did not establish FLTFA goals 

because BLM lacked realty staff to conduct land sales and other 

impediments to sales generally, such as the lack of access, mineral leases, 

mining claims, threatened or endangered species habitat, floodplains, 

wetlands, cultural resources, hazardous materials, and title problems. 

The establishment of goals is an effective management tool for measuring 

and achieving results. As we have reported in the past on management 

under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993,20 leading 

public sector organizations pursuing results-oriented management 

commonly took the following key steps: 

• defined clear missions and desired outcomes, 

• measured performance to gauge progress, and 

• used performance information as a basis for decision making. 

BLM has not fully implemented these steps in managing the FLTFA 

program to sell land designated for disposal in its land use plans. To 

measure BLM’s success in generating revenue and disposing of land under 

FLTFA, actual performance would need to be compared with national 

sales goals for FLTFA. Without national goals for making these sales a 

priority, it is difficult for BLM to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness 

of federal land management as called for in FLTFA through the acquisition 

of inholdings and consolidation of public lands. 

FLTFA requires BLM to deposit the proceeds into the special FLTFA 

account from the sale or exchange of public land identified for disposal 

under approved land use plans in effect on the date of its enactment.21

Other proceeds from land sales and exchanges are typically deposited into 

the U.S. Treasury’s general account. Many of BLM’s land use plans have 

FLTFA’s Restriction on 

Land Available for Sale 

Reduces Potential 

Revenue 

 

20GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and 

Results Act, GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington, D.C.: June 1996). 

21Sec. 205(a) of Pub. L. 106-248 (2000), codified at 43 U.S.C. § 2305. 

Page 24 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
been revised or have been proposed for revision since FLTFA’s enactment, 

and additional lands have been identified for disposal. For example, BLM 

reported the Boise District Office in Idaho is currently planning a sale of 

35 parcels. Five of the 35 parcels, with a total estimated value of $10.7 

million, are not FLTFA eligible. Because of the land use plan restriction, 

revenue from these five sales would not benefit the FLTFA account when 

sold. While this restriction reduces the potential revenue that could be 

dedicated to purchasing inholdings and adjacent land containing 

exceptional resources under FLTFA, it does benefit the U.S. Treasury’s 

general account. 

According to 17 of the 28 BLM state and field realty staff we interviewed, 

their office has land available for disposal that is not designated in an 

FLTFA-eligible land use plan. For example, New Mexico state office 

officials said that a number of land use plan amendments completed or 

under development since FLTFA’s enactment have identified land for 

disposal. They noted that the Las Cruces area land use plan is being 

amended to adjust to the new direction of the city’s growth that has 

occurred since the last plan was prepared in 1993. According to BLM New 

Mexico staff, different or additional lands are expected to be designated 

for disposal in the amended plan. Figure 6 shows land on the west side of 

Las Cruces, New Mexico, that is expected to be designated for disposal in 

the forthcoming revision to accommodate the community’s growth. Field 

office officials said that input from local governments and other interests 

have focused land sales growth in Las Cruces on the west side of the city 

in order to create a buffer for the Organ Mountains on the east side. 

Page 25 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
Figure 6: A View of the West Mesa BLM Property in Las Cruces, New Mexico, That 

Will Be Added to Land Designated for Disposal in the Revised Land Use Plan 

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. Agencies 

spent the $10.9 million between August 2007 and January 2008 on the first 

land acquisitions completed under FLTFA using the secretarial discretion 

provided in the MOU. As of May 31, 2007, the agencies reported submitting 

eight acquisition nominations to state-level interagency teams for 

consideration. The New Mexico interagency team reported submitting six 

additional nominations as of July 1, 2007. None of these 14 nominations—

valued at $71.9 million—has resulted in a completed acquisition. The statelevel process has not yet resulted in acquisitions because of the time taken 

to complete interagency agreements and limited FLTFA funds available for 

acquisition outside of Nevada. Although Nevada has proposed five 

acquisitions, none have been completed. As for the remaining $3.2 million 

in expenditures, BLM reports spending these funds on administrative 

Source: GAO.

Agencies Have 

Purchased Few 

Parcels with FLTFA 

Revenue 

Page 26 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
activities involved in preparing land for sale under FLTFA mostly between 

2004 and 2007. BLM offices in Nevada spent $2.6 million of this total. 

No land acquisitions had occurred during the first 7 years of FLTFA. 

Because the state–level implementation process had not resulted in any 

acquisitions, BLM decided to jump-start the acquisition program and 

conduct purchases under secretarial discretion, as provided for in the 

MOU. In the spring of 2006, BLM headquarters officials solicited 

nominations from the FLTFA leads in each of the other three agencies. 

Most of the nominations agency officials provided were previously 

submitted for funding under LWCF. This secretarial initiative was 

approved by the Secretaries of Agriculture and of the Interior in May 2007. 

The 2007 secretarial initiative provided $18 million in funding for 13 land 

acquisition projects, including 19 parcels of land located in seven states—

Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Oregon, and Wyoming. 

Specifically, the initiative consisted of 9,049 acres and included projects 

for each agency: six BLM projects for $10.15 million, two Fish and Wildlife 

Service projects for $1.75 million, two Forest Service projects for $3.5 

million, and three Park Service projects for $2.6 million. Only 1 of the 19 

parcels is an adjacent land; the rest are inholdings. 

Since the initiative was approved, BLM reported a number of changes that 

the agencies made to the original list of land acquisition projects. For 

example, the total number of acres increased to 9,987 in a total of eight 

states. As of January 23, 2008, BLM reported that the agencies had wholly 

or partially completed 8 of the 13 approved acquisition projects. 

Specifically, the agencies spent $10.1 million between August 2007 and 

January 2008 to complete the acquisition of the first nine parcels under the 

secretarial initiative.22 The acquisitions include 3,381 acres in seven 

states—Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, and 

Wyoming. See table 4 for a complete description of the current status of 

these projects. 

Under a Secretarial 

Initiative, BLM Reports 

Agencies Spent $10.1 

Million on the First Land 

Acquisitions 7 Years after 

FLTFA Was Enacted 

 

22An acquisition is considered complete when the property title is transferred from the 

nonfederal landowner to the federal government. 

Page 27 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
Table 4: Status of FLTFA Land Acquisition Projects Approved under the Secretarial Initiative, as of January 23, 2008

Agency State Federally designated area Acres

FLTFA 

funding Status 

BLM 

California Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard 

Area of Critical Environmental 

Concerna

321 $850,000 Complete 

Colorado Canyons of the Ancients National 

Monument 

469 500,000 Incomplete 

Idaho Snake River Area of Critical 

Environmental Concernb

1,674 4,700,000 Partially completec

New Mexico La Cienega Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern 

El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro 

National Historic Trail 

178 2,200,000 Complete 

Oregon Rogue National Wild and Scenic 

River 

32 600,000 Incomplete 

Wyoming North Platte River Special Recreation 

Management Area 

California National Historic Trail 

Mormon Pioneer National Historic 

Trail 

Pony Express National Historic Trail 

Oregon National Historic Trail 

277 1,300,000 Complete 

Subtotal 2,951 $10,150,000 

Fish and Wildlife Service

Montana Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife 

Refuge 

2,159 1,425,000 Completed

Oregon Siletz Bay National Wildlife Refuge 42 325,000 Partially completee

Subtotal 2,201 $1,750,000 

Forest Service 

Arizona Tonto National Forest 11 635,000 Complete 

California Six Rivers National Forest 

Smith River National Recreation Area 

Goose Creek National Wild and 

Scenic River 

4,303 2,865,000 Incomplete 

Subtotal 4,314 $3,500,000 

Park Service 

Idaho Nez Perce National Historic Park 

Nez Perce National Historic Trail 

510 200,000 Incompletef

New Mexico Aztec Ruins National Monument 10 200,000 Incomplete 

Page 28 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
Agency State Federally designated area Acres

FLTFA 

funding Status 

Wyoming Grand Teton National Park 1 2,200,000 Complete 

Subtotal 521 $2,600,000 

Total 9,987g$18,000,000 

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by BLM headquarters. 

a

This is the only property in the secretarial initiative that is adjacent to federal land; the rest are 

inholdings. 

b Five parcels are included in this project. In addition, BLM has added one 300-acre parcel valued at 

$500,000 to the list of parcels under this project. The BLM FLTFA program lead said this parcel was 

included because of its high resource value but added that the agencies will remain within the $18

million spending level approved by the Secretaries. Of these six parcels, five totaling 1,872 acres will 

be acquired through easement, and one totaling 102 acres will be acquired in fee. 

c

As of January 23, 2008, a 102-acre parcel had been acquired in fee and an easement had been 

acquired on a 300-acre parcel. 

d

BLM reports that an acquisition at the Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge originally included in this 

secretarial initiative failed due to expired options on the property. The Director of the Fish and Wildlife 

Service has substituted an acquisition at the Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge for the same 

amount of funding. 

e

Two parcels are included in this project. 

f

Two parcels, both for easements, are included in this project. 

g

Some of the acres acquired or planned for acquisition were funded in part by sources other than 

FLTFA: the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund.

Figure 7 shows part of the acquisition site within the La Cienega Area of 

Critical Environmental Concern. According to BLM, it selected this site for 

acquisition because (1) it is an archeologically rich area preserving ancient 

rock art and (2) the riparian cottonwood and willow forest that line the 

Santa Fe River and its La Cienega Creek tributary provide critical habitat 

for threatened and endangered wildlife, such as the bald eagle and 

southwest willow flycatcher. The final purchase price was $2.2 million. 

Page 29 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
Figure 7: Part of an Inholding in the BLM La Cienega Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern That Has Been Acquired with FLTFA Funding 

Source: GAO.

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.23

 

23FLTFA allows up to 20 percent of revenue raised to be used for administrative activities 

related to land disposals. If the agencies do not need the total amount allowed for 

administrative expenses, they may use the remainder for acquisitions. See figure 2. 

Page 30 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
In addition to the acquisitions in the secretarial initiative, the agencies 

have submitted 14 acquisition nominations valued at $71.1 million to statelevel interagency teams for consideration, but not one has resulted in a 

completed acquisition. Of the $14.1 million in land acquisitions awaiting a 

secretarial decision, $13.7 million, or 97 percent, is for inholdings and 

$458,000 million—or 3 percent—is for adjacent land. Table 5 shows the 

data we gathered from BLM state offices on the status of the nominations 

that have been submitted. 

Agencies Have Submitted 

Nominations under the 

State-Level Process, But 

None Have Resulted in a 

Land Acquisition 

Table 5: FLTFA Land Acquisition Nominations Reviewed by State-Level Interagency Teams, as of May 31, 2007a

Agency State 

Federally 

designated area 

Inholding or 

adjacent land Acres

Requested 

amountb 

State-level 

interagency 

decision 

If approved, status 

of secretarial 

approval, as of 

November 30, 

2007 

BLM 

Arizona Hells Canyon 

Wilderness 

Inholding 640 $3,000,000 Approved Not yet submitted 

California Coachella Valley 

Fringe-Toed Lizard 

Area of Critical 

Environmental 

Concern 

Adjacent 301 458,000c

Approved Pending 

Nevada Red Rock Canyon 

National 

Conservation Area 

Inholding 80 16,015,000 Approved Approved 

Nevada Humboldt-Toiyabe 

National Forest 

Adjacent 320 29,126,000 Approved Withdrawn 

New Mexico Gila Lower Box 

Area of Critical 

Environmental 

Concern 

Adjacent 1,880 2,055,000 Deniedd- 

New Mexico Continental Divide 

National Scenic 

Trail 

Inholding 5,000 1,530,825 Deniede - 

New Mexico Elk Springs Area of 

Critical 

Environmental 

Concern 

Inholding 2,280 1,810,000 Approved Pending 

Forest 

Service 

Nevada Humboldt-Toiyabe 

National Forest 

Inholding 320 1,230,000 Approved Approvedf

Nevada Humboldt-Toiyabe 

National Forest 

Inholding 385 3,530,000 Approved Approvedf

Page 31 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
Agency State 

Federally 

designated area 

Inholding or 

adjacent land Acres

Requested 

amountb 

State-level 

interagency 

decision 

If approved, status 

of secretarial 

approval, as of 

November 30, 

2007 

Nevada Humboldt-Toiyabe 

National Forest 

Inholding 40 10,624,500 Approved Pending 

New Mexico Cibola National 

Forest 

Inholding 160 160,000 Deniedg - 

New Mexico Santa Fe National 

Forest 

Inholding 160 660,000 Approved Pending 

New Mexico Santa Fe National 

Forest 

Inholding 160 560,000 Approved Pending 

Wyoming Bridger-Teton 

National Forest 

Inholding 40 388,600hPending - 

Total 11,766 $71,147,925

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by BLM state offices. 

a

Although we requested information that had been updated as of May 31, 2007, the New Mexico 

interagency team provided information updated as of July 1, 2007. To provide the most current 

information, we are including the nominations in the July 1, 2007 data. 

b

Requested amount includes the estimated value of the parcel and, in some cases, administrative 

costs associated with the acquisition. 

c

The total value of this acquisition is estimated at $975,000. BLM plans to use LWCF funding to cover 

the remaining $517,000. 

d

This nomination was denied because it is not immediately adjacent to a federally designated area. 

e

While BLM nominated this parcel for acquisition, it was denied because the state interagency team 

determined this parcel is an inholding within a national forest. 

f

This acquisition was approved by the Secretaries but was ultimately terminated due to negotiating 

issues with the seller. 

g

This nomination was denied because it is a lower Forest Service priority. 

h

The total value of this acquisition is estimated at $412,600. The Forest Service plans to use other 

funding sources to cover the remaining $24,000. 

The Nevada interagency team has submitted a total of five nominations for 

secretarial approval under FLTFA. It nominated two Forest Service 

acquisitions—a total of 705 acres valued at $4.76 million—in 2004. These 

were the first nominations submitted for secretarial approval under 

FLTFA. The Forest Service was unable to complete the purchases because 

of negotiating differences with the sellers. Of the remaining three Nevada 

nominations, one valued at $16 million was approved in November 2007, 

one valued at $10.6 million awaits approval, and one valued at $29 million 

has been withdrawn by the Nevada interagency team. 

Page 32 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
The recently approved Nevada nomination is for the Pine Creek State 

Park, an 80-acre inholding owned by the state of Nevada valued at $16 

million (see fig. 8). BLM currently manages this inholding, which is located 

in BLM’s Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area. According to the 

BLM nomination package, BLM would like to acquire this property to meet 

the increasing recreational and educational needs of the park. BLM 

explains that the property has recreational value; cultural resources; 

riparian habitat; and habitat for the desert tortoise, currently a threatened 

and endangered species. 

Figure 8: Photograph and Location of the 80-Acre Pine Creek State Park Inholding Approved as an FLTFA-Funded Acquisition 

at $16 Million 

Note: The location map identifies the Pine Creek State Park inholding within the boundaries of BLM’s 

Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area located near Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Page 33 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
The nomination that was withdrawn by the Nevada interagency team is the 

320-acre Winter’s Ranch property, which is adjacent to the HumboltToiyabe National Forest and several other properties acquired by BLM 

under SNPLMA. BLM’s FLTFA program lead said the nomination of the 

parcel was withdrawn, in part because it is not adjacent to a federally 

designated area managed by BLM. 

In its nomination to acquire Winter’s Ranch, the Carson City Field Office 

said this parcel provides critical habitat for shorebirds, water fowl, and 

other water-dependent species; offers unique recreational opportunities 

for the public; and an undisturbed view for area commuters and tourists. 

According to a Carson City Field Office official, three creeks run through 

this property and irrigate the land, making it possible to sustain wildlife 

habitat, such as raptors and migratory birds. The official said that about 

$20 million of the estimated $29 million value of the Winter’s Ranch 

property is for the water rights to the property, and that if BLM did not 

obtain the water rights, other parties could acquire them and divert the 

water resources to other areas, such as developing communities near 

Reno. The Winter’s Ranch parcel is shown in figure 9. 

Page 34 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
Figure 9: The 320-Acre Winter’s Ranch FLTFA Acquisition Nomination in Nevada, 

Valued at $29 Million 

Source: GAO.

Over one-half of the state-level interagency teams—Colorado, Idaho, 

Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, and Utah—did not review any land 

acquisitions proposals between July 2000, when FLTFA was enacted, and 

May 2007. Furthermore, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Park Service 

have yet to submit a nomination for review under the state-level 

interagency process. Fish and Wildlife Service and Park Service officials 

based in California said they lacked the FLTFA funding necessary to 

complete an acquisition and would have to wait until sufficient revenue 

were available to allow them to nominate an acquisition. 

In examining the headquarters review and approval process, we found that 

the Land Transaction Facilitation Council established in the national MOU 

has never met. The BLM FLTFA program lead explained that, as a practical 

matter, it has not been necessary for this council to meet. Rather, in 

practice, acquisition nominations are forwarded to the BLM lead and then 

routed to his counterparts at the other three agencies for review. 

Page 35 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
Additional reviews are then conducted at the agency level and, ultimately, 

at the secretarial level. 

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. First, it has taken 

over 6 years for the four agencies to complete all interagency 

agreements—3 years for the agencies to complete a national MOU and an 

additional 3 years for the agencies to complete all state-level 

implementation agreements. Most agencies completed Federal Register

notifications of their procedures to identify and set priorities for 

inholdings, as called for in the act, soon after state-level agreements were 

signed. Nevada was the first state to complete the implementation 

agreement in June 2004, and it published a Federal Register notice in 

August 2004. Utah was the last state to complete these actions, reaching an 

agreement in November 2006 and publishing its Federal Register notice in 

March 2007. Table 6 summarizes the completion of implementation 

agreements and the Federal Register publication for each state. 

Page 36 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
Table 6: Completion of FLTFA Implementation Agreements and Federal Register

Notifications by State 

State 

Date implementation 

agreement signed 

Federal Register 

publication date 

Nevada June 2004 August 2004 

Montana May 2005 June 2006 

California November 2005 March 2006 

Colorado January 2006 August 2006 

Oregon/Washington March 2006 May 2006 

Arizona May 2006 July 2006 

Idaho July 2006 September 2006 

Wyoming July 2006 September 2006 

New Mexico August 2006 September 2006 

Utah November 2006 March 2007 

Sources: FLTFA state-level interagency agreements and Federal Register notices. 

BLM officials told us that completion of these agreements was delayed for 

a number of reasons, including attention to other priorities, difficulties 

coordinating the effort with four agencies, and lack of urgency due to 

limited revenue available for acquisitions. 

Second, funds for acquisitions have been limited outside of Nevada. 

Because FLTFA requires that at least 80 percent of funds raised must be 

spent in the state in which they were raised and because 92 percent of 

funds have been raised in Nevada, the majority of funds must be spent on 

acquisitions in Nevada. However, as discussed earlier, no acquisitions have 

yet been completed in Nevada. Additional factors, such as the fact that 

about 92 percent of Nevada is already federally owned and that SNPLMA 

has provided additional resources for land acquisitions in Nevada, may 

have also contributed to the lack of a completed acquisition under FLTFA 

in Nevada. 

Outside of Nevada, agencies have had little money to acquire land. Several 

agency officials, such as BLM state office officials in Utah and Oregon, told 

us that additional revenue needs to be generated under FLTFA for land 

acquisitions to occur. Moreover, Park Service and Forest Service officials 

in California told us they are waiting for adequate funding before they 

begin identifying and nominating acquisitions. The Forest Service official 

explained that the agency could not make significant purchases with their 

share of the FLTFA funds in California because of the high cost of real 

estate. 

Page 37 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
BLM Reports Spending 

$3.2 Million on FLTFA 

Administrative Activities 

Between the time FLTFA was enacted and July 20, 2007, BLM reports 

spending $3.2 million on FLTFA administrative expenses to conduct land 

sales under the act. The three other agencies do not have land sale 

expenses under the program. The BLM Nevada offices spent 81 percent of 

the revenue, or $2.6 million. BLM offices in Arizona, California, New 

Mexico, and Oregon each spent over $100,000, and the remaining five 

states spent a combined total of less than $50,000. States with the most 

active sales programs generally spent the most FLTFA revenue. For 

example, Nevada field offices conducted 106 of the 265 total sales under 

FLTFA, or 40 percent of the sales. Table 7 summarizes administrative 

expenditures by state as reported by BLM’s Division of Business Services. 

Table 7: BLM Reported Administrative Expenditures by State, July 25, 2000, 

through July 20, 2007 

State Expenditure amount

Arizona $103,636

California 123,119

Colorado 37,173

Idaho 652

Montana 0

New Mexico 171,712

Nevada 2,574,074

Oregon/Washington 145,930

Utah 7,319

Wyoming 4,022

Othera4,319

Total $3,171,956

Source: GAO analysis of BLM’s Division of Business Services data. 

a

In addition to BLM state and field office expenditures, the Division of Business Services spent $2,595 

and the BLM headquarters office spent $1,724—a total of $4,319. 

BLM spent little FLTFA revenue on the administrative costs of land sales 

during the first 3 years of the program. According to the BLM FLTFA 

program lead, there was little incentive for BLM to sell its land because the 

MOU was not in place. Spending has generally increased since then, with a 

spike in fiscal year 2006. Figure 10 shows FLTFA expenditures from its 

enactment to July 2007. 

Page 38 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
Figure 10: FLTFA Administrative Expenditures, July 25, 2000, through July 20, 2007 

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Dollars in thousands

Source: GAO analysis of BLM’s Division of Business Services data.

Year

BLM’s Division of Business Services tracks FLTFA expenditures through 

eight expenditure types. As table 8 shows, BLM offices spent 72 percent of 

FLTFA expenditures —about $2.3 million—on personnel compensation 

and benefits (e.g., staff to conduct sales). 

Table 8: FLTFA Administrative Expenditures by Type, as of July 20, 2007 

Expenditure type Amount Percent of total

Personnel compensation and benefitsa $2,268,338b 72

Other servicesc 829,948 26

Printing and reproduction 29,792 1

Supplies and materials 18,440 1

Travel and transportation—personnel 18,054 1

Transportation of things 7,093 less than 1

Rent, communications, and utilities 292 less than 1

Total $3,171,957 d

Source: GAO analysis of BLM’s Division of Business Services data. 

a

Personnel compensation and benefits represent two expenditure types. Because they both involve 

payroll expenditures, we have combined them in this table. 

Page 39 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
b

Of this amount, personnel compensation accounted for $1,819,397 and personnel benefits 

accounted for $448,941. 

c

Other services include expenditures such as appraisals and contracts for environmental and cultural 

activities. 

d

Due to rounding, the percentages do not add up to 100. 

BLM managers and we identified several challenges in completing 

additional acquisitions before FLTFA expires in 2010. BLM officials most 

commonly cited the time, cost, and complexity of the land acquisition 

process as a challenge to conducting acquisitions under FLTFA. 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. Finally, the agencies have yet to 

develop effective procedures to fully comply with the act and national 

MOU. 

BLM state and field officials from the 10 BLM state offices and 18 BLM 

field offices we interviewed most commonly cited the time, cost, and 

complexity of the land acquisition process as a challenge they face in 

completing land acquisitions. The other most commonly cited challenges 

were, in the order of frequency cited, (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 the challenges BLM 

state and field officials cited are likely typical of many federal land 

acquisitions. Because they have had little experience with FLTFA 

acquisitions, officials from the other three agencies had few comments 

about challenges. The following provides examples of each of these 

challenges: 

Agencies Face 

Challenges in 

Completing 

Additional 

Acquisitions 

BLM Officials Most 

Commonly Cited the Time, 

Cost, and Complexity of 

the Land Acquisition 

Process as a Challenge, 

among Several, to 

Completing Acquisitions 

• Time, cost, and complexity of the land acquisition process. To complete 

an acquisition under FLTFA, four agencies must work together to identify, 

nominate, and rank proposed acquisitions, which must then be approved 

by the two Secretaries. Officials at two field offices estimated the 

acquisition process takes about 2-1/2 to 3 years. BLM officials from the 

Wyoming State Office and the Las Cruces Field Office said that, with this 

length of time, BLM must either identify a very committed seller willing to 

wait to complete a transaction or obtain the assistance of a third party in 

completing an acquisition. A third party could help either by purchasing 

Page 40 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
the land first, holding it, and then selling it to the government at a later 

date, or by negotiating with the seller an option to buy the land within a 

specified period. In terms of cost, some offices noted that they did not 

have the funding required to complete all of the work involved to prepare 

land acquisitions. In terms of complexity, a Utah State Office official said 

BLM has more control over the process for submitting land acquisitions 

under LWCF than FLTFA because FLTFA requires four agencies in two 

departments to coordinate their efforts. 

• Identifying a willing seller. Identifying a willing seller can be problematic 

because, among other things, the seller might have higher expectations of 

the property’s value. For example, an Ely Field Office official explained 

that, because of currently high real estate values, sellers believe they can 

obtain higher prices from developers than from the federal government. 

Further, an Idaho State Office official said that it is difficult to find a seller 

willing to accept the appraised price and wait for the government to 

complete the purchase. 

Even when land acquisition nominations are approved, they may not result 

in a purchase. For example, in 2004, under FLTFA, two approved 

acquisitions for inholdings within a national forest in Nevada were 

terminated. In one case, property values rose sharply during the 

nomination process and, in an effort to retain some of their land, the seller 

decided to reduce the acres for sale but maintain the price expectation. 

Furthermore, the landowner decided not to grant access through the 

parcel they were retaining to the Forest Service, thus eliminating the 

opportunity to secure access to an inaccessible area of the national forest. 

In the other case, during the course of the secretarial approval process, the 

landowner sold portions of the land included in the original transaction to 

another party, reducing the land available for the Forest Service to 

purchase. According to Forest Service officials, in both cases the purchase 

of the remaining parcels would not fulfill the original purpose of the 

acquisitions due to reductions in resource benefits. Therefore, the Forest 

Service terminated both projects. Similarly, the SNPLMA program in 

Nevada has had many terminated land acquisitions. Specifically, of the 116 

land acquisition projects approved by the Secretary of the Interior from 

enactment in October 1998 through September 2007, 41 have been 

completed, 55 have been terminated, and 20 are pending. This represents a 

47 percent termination rate. BLM did not report why these acquisitions 

were terminated. 

• Availability of knowledgeable staff to conduct acquisitions. As is the case 

with selling federal land, BLM officials reported that they lack 

knowledgeable realty staff to conduct land acquisitions, as well as other 

Page 41 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
BLM or department staff to conduct appraisals, surveys, and resource 

studies. Staff are occupied working on higher priority activities, 

particularly in the energy area. 

• Lack of funding to purchase land. BLM officials in some states said they 

lack adequate funds to acquire land under FLTFA. For example, according 

to a field office official in Burns, Oregon, just one acquisition in a nearby 

conservation area would nearly drain that state’s FLTFA account. 

• Restrictions imposed by laws and regulations. BLM officials said that 

legal and other restrictions pose a challenge to acquiring land. BLM 

Arizona and Grand Junction, Colorado, officials said that some federally 

designated areas in their jurisdictions were established after the date of 

FLTFA’s enactment, making the land within them ineligible for acquisition 

under the act. BLM New Mexico officials said that FLTFA’s requirement 

that land be inholdings or adjacent land is too limiting and argued that the 

law generally should allow for the acquisition of land that has high 

resource values. In terms of regulations, BLM Carson City Field Office 

officials told us that the requirements they must follow regarding the 

processing of title, survey, and hazardous materials issues pose a 

challenge to conducting acquisitions. 

• Public opposition to land acquisitions. According to BLM officials from 

the Elko and Ely Field Offices in Nevada, the public does not support the 

federal government’s acquisition of federal land in their areas, arguing that 

the government already owns a high percentage of land and that such 

acquisitions result in the removal of land from the local tax base. 

FLTFA’s restriction on the use of funds outside of the state in which they 

were raised continues to limit acquisitions. Specifically, as mentioned 

earlier, little revenue is available for acquisitions outside of Nevada. 

Furthermore, the Secretaries of Agriculture and of the Interior have given 

only minimal attention to developing a procedure specific to FLTFA for 

identifying inholdings and adjacent land and setting priorities for acquiring 

them, as required by the act. According to BLM’s Assistant Director for 

Minerals, Realty, and Resource Protection, the four agencies met this 

requirement through their 2003 MOU. The official explained that the MOU 

establishes “a program for identification of eligible lands or interests in 

lands, and a process for prioritizing such lands or interests for 

acquisition.” However, we found that the MOU only restates the basic 

statutory language for this requirement and states that the Secretaries are 

to establish a mechanism for identifying and setting priorities for acquiring 

Compliance with Specific 

Provisions in FLTFA 

Continue to Pose 

Challenges to Future 

Acquisitions 

Page 42 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
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 

State agreement 

Availability of 

funding 

Completeness of 

nomination 

package 

Local 

support 

Agency 

prioritization 

Contributes 

toward the 

preservation of 

a specially 

designated 

species 

Estimated postacquisition 

management 

costs Other

Arizona X X 

California X X X X 

Colorado X X X 

Idaho X X X X 

Montana 

Nevada X X X X Xa

New Mexico 

Oregon/Washington X X X 

Utah X X X 

Wyoming X X X 

Source: FLTFA state-level implementation agreements. 

 

24BLM’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 
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. 

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.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 

 

25The BLM FLTFA program lead said that the criteria for acquisitions under LWCF are 

generally broad enough to include the criteria under FLTFA. 

26BLM’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. 

27The 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 
whether the MOU fund allocations are set at the state or national level is 

important because allocations that apply nationally provide more 

flexibility than allocations at the state level. While BLM did not track the 

allocations, most state-level interagency agreements provide guidance on 

consideration of nominations that exceed the established allocations and 

some BLM state office officials we spoke with were mindful of these 

allocation targets. For example, in California, the interagency team had 

agreed to “lend” BLM the funds from their allocations for a proposed BLM 

acquisition because they themselves could not effectively use the small 

portions of funding allocated to them. In contrast, in Oregon, BLM officials 

said they had not considered such an arrangement. The BLM FLTFA 

program lead said the funding decisions made by the Secretaries will be 

tracked and further information will be provided to the state-level 

interagency teams to clear up any misunderstanding of the requirement.28

Congress anticipated that FLTFA would increase the efficiency and 

effectiveness of federal land management by allowing the four agencies to 

use certain land sales revenue without further appropriation to acquire 

priority land. Seven years later, BLM has not taken full advantage of the 

opportunity FLTFA offered. BLM has raised most of the funds for the 

FLTFA account with land sales in just one state, and it and the other land 

management agencies have made limited progress in acquiring inholdings 

and adjacent land with exceptional resources. Because there are less than 

3 years remaining until FLTFA expires and a significant amount of time is 

needed to complete both sales and acquisitions, relatively little time 

remains to improve the implementation of FLTFA. 

Conclusions 

We recognize that a number of challenges have prevented BLM from 

completing many sales in most states, which limits the number of possible 

acquisitions. Many of the challenges that BLM cited are likely faced in 

many public land sales, as FLTFA did not change the land sales process. 

However, we believe that BLM’s failure to set goals for FLTFA sales and 

develop a sales implementation strategy limits the agency’s ability to raise 

revenue for acquisitions. Without goals and a strategy to achieve them, 

BLM field offices do not have direction for FLTFA sales. Moreover, the 

 

28BLM reported that the first national training workshop on FLTFA for BLM and the other 

three agencies was held in December 2007, during which the tracking of the funding 

allocations was to be clarified. 

Page 45 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
lack of goals makes it difficult to determine the extent of BLM’s progress 

in disposing of unneeded lands to raise funds for acquisitions. 

As with sales, progress in acquiring priority land has been hampered by 

weak agency performance in developing an effective mechanism to 

identify potential land acquisitions and set priorities for inholdings and 

adjacent land with exceptional resources, which FLTFA requires. Without 

such a mechanism, it is difficult to assess whether the agencies are 

acquiring the most significant inholdings and, thus, enabling them to more 

effectively and efficiently manage federal lands. Although the agencies do 

have systems to identify and set priorities for land acquisitions under 

LWCF that could potentially be adapted for the FLTFA acquisitions as 

well, they have not done so. Moreover, because the agencies have not 

tracked the amounts spent on inholdings and agency allocations, they 

cannot ensure compliance with the act or full implementation of the MOU. 

As Congress considers the Administration’s proposal to amend and 

reauthorize FLTFA, it may wish to reconsider the act’s requirements that 

eligible lands are only those designated in the land use plans at the time 

FLTFA was enacted and that most FLTFA revenue raised must be spent in 

that state. Adjusting the eligibility of land use plans, as the Administration 

has proposed, could provide additional resources for land acquisitions 

under FLTFA. In addition, providing the agencies with more flexibility 

over the use of funds may allow them to acquire the most desirable land 

nationwide. 

If Congress decides to reauthorize FLTFA in 2010, it may wish to consider 

revising the following provisions to better achieve the goals of the act: 

• FLTFA limits eligible land sales to those lands identified in land use 

plans in effect as of July 25, 2000. This provision excludes more recently 

identified land available for disposal, thereby reducing opportunities for 

raising additional revenue for land acquisition. 

Matters for 

Congressional 

Consideration 

• The requirement that agencies spend the majority of funds raised from 

eligible sales for acquisitions in the same state. This provision makes it 

difficult for agencies to acquire more desirable land in states that have 

generated little revenue. 

Page 46 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
We are making five recommendations. 

To improve the implementation of the FLTFA mandate to raise funds to 

purchase inholdings, we recommend that the Secretary of the Interior 

direct the Director of BLM to 

• develop goals for land sales, and 

• develop a strategy for implementing these goals during the last 3 years of 

the program. 

To enhance the departments’ compliance with the act, we recommend that 

the Secretaries of Agriculture and of the Interior improve the procedure in 

place to identify and set priorities for acquiring inholdings. 

To enhance the departments’ compliance with the act, we recommend that 

the Secretary of the Interior direct the Director of BLM to establish a 

procedure to track the percentage of revenue spent on inholdings and on 

adjacent land. 

To fully implement the National Memorandum of Understanding, we 

recommend that the Secretaries of Agriculture and of the Interior establish 

a procedure to track the fund allocations for land acquisitions by agency 

as provided in the MOU. 

The Department of the Interior provided written comments on a draft of 

this report. The department generally concurred with our report’s findings 

and recommendations, stating that it will implement all of the 

recommendations. These comments are presented in appendix IV of this 

report. In addition, Interior and the Department of Agriculture provided 

technical comments on the draft report, which we have incorporated as 

appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of the Interior; the 

Secretary of Agriculture; the Directors of BLM, the Park Service, and the 

Fish and Wildlife Service; and the Chief of the Forest Service; and other 

interested parties. We will also make copies available to others upon 

request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO 

Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

Page 47 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact me at 

(202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix V. 

Robin M. Nazzaro 

Director, Natural Resources 

 and Environment 

Page 48 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

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 also assessed the reliability of data BLM provided 

on revenue generated and on expenditures to date under FLTFA. 

For all four objectives, we reviewed FLTFA, other applicable laws, 

regulations, and agency guidance. 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. To understand 

BLM’s interpretation of key provisions of the act, we interviewed officials 

with Interior’s Office of the Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals 

Management and Office of the Solicitor and, in some cases, requested the 

department’s views on these provisions in writing. 

To determine the extent to which BLM has generated and expended 

FLTFA program revenue, we obtained and analyzed data from BLM’s 

Division of Business Services on program revenue and visited Division of 

Business Services accounting officials in Lakewood, Colorado, to discuss 

the management of the FLTFA account. Using information provided by the 

Division of Business Services and information we obtained from the 

Federal Register, we prepared summary information on completed sales 

by state and asked the 10 BLM state office officials responsible for the 

FLTFA program in their state to verify and update that information. As 

part of the request to state offices, we obtained data on planned FLTFA 

land sales and completed and planned acquisitions through 2010. We 

subjected the data provided by the field offices to electronic and logic 

testing and followed up with the field contacts regarding questions. With 

regard to acquisitions, we reviewed available documentation for land 

acquisition proposals considered by the 10 FLTFA interagency teams at 

the state level, agency headquarters, and the Secretaries of Agriculture and 

of the Interior. During our visits to selected BLM state offices (California, 

Nevada, New Mexico, and Oregon) and field offices (Carson City, Nevada, 

and Las Cruces, New Mexico), we interviewed officials and visited 

planned land acquisition sites to learn about the land acquisition process. 

During these visits we also interviewed selected officials with the Fish and 

Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, and the Park Service to learn about 

their experience in drafting state-level interagency agreements and with 

Page 49 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

implementing land acquisitions under FLTFA. To assess the reliability of 

data provided by the Division of Business Services on revenue and 

expenditures, we interviewed staff responsible for compiling and reporting 

the data at the Division of Business Services and at the state office and 

field locations visited. We examined reports of this data from BLM’s 

financial systems and related guidance and sought documentation on 

selected entries into the system. 

To determine whether BLM has sufficient internal controls over FLTFA 

receipts and expenditures, we interviewed officials at the bureau’s 

Division of Business Services and obtained, reviewed, and assessed the 

system of internal controls for the U.S. Treasury account established 

under FLTFA, including management’s written policies and procedures, as 

well as control activities over collections, expenditures, and the records 

for these transactions. We also reviewed documentation for a nonprobability sample of 7 nonlabor FLTFA expenditures totaling $54,967 that 

were charged by the Las Cruces Field Office to ensure proper 

documentation. As of July 20, 2007, BLM offices had made a total of 15,706 

expenditure transactions—858 nonlabor and 14,848 labor—nationwide. 

The seven we chose included expenditures for appraisals and cultural 

evaluations on properties being prepared for sale under FLTFA. We chose 

these transactions because they were the largest ones and included a 

single vendor. We also chose one expenditure made on a charge card 

because it was slightly less than a reporting limit. We checked to ensure 

that documentation for these expenditures included (1) an agreement or 

contract between BLM and the entity to have specific work completed, (2) 

an invoice detailing work performed, and (3) evidence of BLM supervisory 

approval to pay for such services. After our review of the internal control 

policies and procedures, testing and verification of data on revenue, and 

obtaining documentation of the selected expenditures, the revenue and 

expenditure data was considered sufficiently reliable for our report. 

To identify challenges to conducting land sales and acquisitions, we 

reviewed the FLTFA national memorandum of understanding, state-level 

interagency agreements, and documentation of headquarters and statelevel interagency team activities to learn about the policies and 

procedures established for the implementation of FLTFA. We conducted 

semistructured interviews using a web-based protocol with (1) the 10 BLM 

state officials responsible for the FLTFA program in their state—Arizona, 

California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, 

Oregon/Washington, Utah, and Wyoming; (2) officials at the seven BLM 

field offices that have raised 97 percent of the FLTFA revenue (as shown 

in table 10); and (3) a nongeneralizable sample of 11 of the 137 remaining 

Page 50 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

BLM field offices that had not conducted a competitive sale under FLTFA 

as of May 31, 2007 (as shown in table 11). From the field offices with no 

competitive sales, we choose at least one office from each of the ten state 

offices under FLTFA and we considered the proximity of lands managed 

by field offices to urban areas. For California, we selected two additional 

field offices—Palm Springs and Eagle Lake. We chose the Palm Springs 

Field Office because it planned a major sale during our review and we 

chose the Eagle Lake Field Office because, although it is located in 

California, it manages some land in Nevada and has had no competitive 

sales. Because all of the Nevada field offices have had competitive sales 

and four Nevada offices were among the high revenue offices selected, we 

decided to select the Eagle Lake office. To analyze the narrative responses 

to some of the semistructured interview questions, we used the web-based 

system to perform content analyses of select open-ended responses. To 

conduct the content analyses to develop statistics on agreement among 

the answers, two reviewers per question collaborated on developing 

content categories based on survey responses and independently assessed 

and coded each survey response into those categories. Intercoder 

reliability (agreement) statistics were electronically generated in the 

coding process, and agreement on all categories were 90 percent or above. 

Coding disagreements were resolved through reviewer discussion. In 

addition, analyses of the closed-ended responses were produced with 

statistical software. 

Table 10: The Seven BLM Field Offices Selected That Have Generated 97 Percent of 

FLTFA Revenue, as of May 31, 2007 

State BLM office 

Nevada Carson City Field Office 

Nevada Elko Field Office 

Nevada Ely Field Office 

Nevada Las Vegas Field Office 

New Mexico Las Cruces District Office 

Oregon Burns District Office 

Wyoming Rock Springs Field Office 

Source: GAO analysis of BLM Division of Business Services revenue data. 

Page 51 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Table 11: The Eleven BLM Field Offices Selected That Had Not Conducted a 

Competitive Sale under FLTFA, as of May 31, 2007 

State BLM office 

Arizona Lower Sonoran Field Office 

California Eagle Lake Field Office 

California El Centro Field Office 

California Palm Springs Field Office 

Colorado Grand Junction Field Office 

Idaho Idaho Falls District Office 

Montana Lewistown Field Office 

New Mexico Farmington Field Office 

Oregon Medford District Office 

Utah St. George Field Office 

Wyoming Casper Field Office 

Source: GAO analysis of BLM Division of Business Services revenue data and other factors. 

We also interviewed a range of officials about the land acquisition process. 

These officials included FLTFA program leads at each agency’s 

headquarters and selected state or regional-level contacts with each 

agency, as well as officials from third-party organizations involved with 

the land acquisition process, such as The Nature Conservancy and The 

Trust for Public Land. 

We performed our work between November 2006 and February 2008 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 

standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, 

appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence 

obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. 

Page 52 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
Appendix II: Completed FLTFA Land Sales, 

through May 2007 

State and office Customer 

Transaction 

date 

Amount 

collected Acreage

Fair market 

value Sale price

Disposal 

method 

Arizona 

Arizona Strip District 

Office 

Betty Foster/Marble 

Canyon Co. Inc. 

06/19/2002 $21,600 22.77 $21,600 $21,600 Direct 

a

Joe W. Wright 02/27/2002 32,502 5 32,500 32,502 Competitive 

California 

Eagle Lake Field Office Pitchfork Cattle Co. 02/04/2003 8,000 40 8,000 8,000 Direct 

Folsom Field Office Michael Spence 05/20/2002 10,000 3.75 10,000 10,000 Direct 

Folsom Field Office Joseph Parisi 12/03/2003 7,660 1.86 a aDirect 

Folsom Field Office Fidelity National 

Title/Joseph Parisi 

12/03/2003 25,000 4.06 25,000 25,000 Direct 

Folsom Field Office Isak Hanson 12/06/2002 5,000 1.17 5,000 5,000 Direct 

Folsom Field Office Operating Engineers 

Local Union No 

3/Frank Rocha 

01/12/2006 15,050 1.59 15,000 15,000 Direct 

Folsom Field Office Big Oak Flat 1st 

Baptist Church 

05/01/2003 2,050 1.89 2,000 2,050 Direct 

Redding Field Office Richard Dews 10/07/2002 7,250 7.36 7,250 7,250 Direct 

Redding Field Office Trinity County 05/14/2002 135,000 123.28 135,000 135,000 Direct 

Redding Field Office Department Of 

General Services 

05/09/2003 20,000 30.14 20,000 20,000 Direct 

Colorado 

Kremmling Field Office Peter Van Veen 10/18/2005 268,100 41.26 268,100 268,100 Modified 

competitive 

Kremmling Field Office Ray Miller 06/23/2006 67,500 2.65 67,500 67,500 Competitive 

Kremmling Field Office Stephen Rector 10/18/2005 16,000 3.2 12,000 16,000 Modified 

competitive 

Royal Gorge Field Office Gary Munson 10/07/2002 19,300 3.17 19,300 19,300 Direct 

Royal Gorge Field Office Debora Evangelista 06/27/2002 38,600 2.32 38,600 38,600 Direct 

Royal Gorge Field Office Tom Cardinale 04/11/2002 2,610 0.6 2,610 2,610 Direct 

Royal Gorge Field Office Lenore Seiler 10/07/2002 9,680 1.21 9,680 9,680 Direct 

Royal Gorge Field Office Cripple Creek & Victor 

Gold Mining Company 

11/18/2003 21,361 5.76 21,361 21,361 Competitive 

Royal Gorge Field Office Cripple Creek & Victor 

Gold Mining Company 

11/18/2003 24,622 6.14 24,622 24,622 Competitive 

Royal Gorge Field Office Cripple Creek & Victor 

Gold Mining Company 

11/18/2003 11,405 1.51 11,405 11,405 Competitive 

Royal Gorge Field Office Cripple Creek & Victor 

Gold Mining Company 

11/18/2003 18,505 5.45 18,505 18,505 Competitive 

Appendix II: Completed FLTFA Land Sales, 

through May 2007 

Page 53 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
Appendix II: Completed FLTFA Land Sales, 

through May 2007 

State and office Customer 

Transaction 

date 

Amount 

collected Acreage

Fair market 

value Sale price

Disposal 

method 

Royal Gorge Field Office Cripple Creek & Victor 

Gold Mining Company 

11/18/2003 10,538 3.05 10,538 10,538 Competitive 

Royal Gorge Field Office Cripple Creek & Victor 

Gold Mining Company 

11/18/2003 50,720 10.42 50,720 50,720 Competitive 

Royal Gorge Field Office County of Boulder 06/19/2002 20,540 1.95 20,540 20,540 Direct 

San Juan Public Land 

Center 

Daren and Georgia 

Hillery 

11/18/2002 6,400 3.88 6,400 6,400 Direct 

San Luis Valley Public 

Land Center 

Mountain Valley 

Lumber 

05/09/2007 31,500 28.63 31,500 31,500 Direct 

San Luis Valley Public 

Land Center 

Hal Wilsohn 08/27/2006 2,250 3.21 2,250 2,250 Direct 

White River Field Office Taylor Temples 08/01/2002 25,750 2.49 25,750 25,750 Direct 

White River Field Office Walter Powell 06/13/2002 2,500 3.35 2,500 2,500 Direct 

White River Field Office Gary Staley 06/17/2002 11,775 7.85 11,775 11,775 Direct 

White River Field Office Mark Slawson 06/04/2002 4,500 7.5 4,500 4,500 Direct 

White River Field Office Chris Halandras 05/22/2002 40,000 10.47 40,000 40,000 Direct 

White River Field Office Cross Slash 4 Ranch 11/18/2002 10,000 2.52 10,000 10,000 Direct 

White River Field Office Big Mountain Ranch, 

LLC 

06/06/2002 160,000 80 160,000 160,000 Direct 

White River Field Office Howard Cooper 04/21/2006 65,700 4.84 65,700 65,700 Direct 

Idaho 

Boise District Office Ada County 04/24/2002 116,000 80 116,000 116,000 Direct 

Boise District Office Owyhee County 06/06/2005 9,000 30 9,000 9,000 Direct 

Challis Field Office David W. Baker 05/18/2006 9,600 5 9,600 9,600 Direct 

Challis Field Office David W. Baker 05/18/2006 5,000 3.09 5,000 5,000 Direct 

Challis Field Office Gerald Nelson 04/29/2002 24,600 49.2 24,600 24,600 Direct 

Challis Field Office Sydney Dowton 02/26/2002 5,940 31.27 5,940 5,940 Direct 

Challis Field Office Firstfruits Foundation 04/02/2007 2,600 0.75 2,600 2,600 Direct 

a

Susan Davis 08/28/2003 2,200 0.96 2,200 2,200 Direct 

Upper Snake Field 

Office 

Byron and Teresa 

Blakely 

04/10/2006 5,800 5.81 5,800 5,800 Direct 

Montana 

South Dakota Field 

Office 

Wharf Resources 04/29/2005 300 4.05 300 300 Direct 

South Dakota Field 

Office 

Golden Reward 

Mining Co. 

01/12/2005 700 8.93 700 700 Direct 

South Dakota Field 

Office 

S and J Cattle 11/28/2006 58,000 40 26,000 58,000 Competitive 

Nevada 

Page 54 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
Appendix II: Completed FLTFA Land Sales, 

through May 2007 

State and office Customer 

Transaction 

date 

Amount 

collected Acreage

Fair market 

value Sale price

Disposal 

method 

Battle Mountain Field 

Office 

Homestake Mining Co. 06/27/2003 70,450 351.24 70,450 70,450 Direct 

Carson City Field Office Carson Auto Mall, LLC 01/29/2004 14,600,000 146 6,500,000 14,600,000 Competitive 

Carson City Field Office John Serpa 04/24/2006 8,400,000 106.25 6,400,000 8,400,000 Competitive 

Carson City Field Office Raymond Sidney 07/17/2006 16,100,000 100 10,000,000 16,100,000 Competitive 

Carson City Field Office Jacob and Arezou 

Saeedi 

09/08/2005 608,000 30 297,000 608,000 Competitive 

Elko Field Office Mike Gerber 09/28/2004 16,500 40 4,600 16,500 Competitive 

Elko Field Office Rabab Mardini 09/20/2004 62,000 249.4 59,000 62,000 Competitive 

Elko Field Office Elko Land and 

Livestock 

10/16/2006 36,000 79.5 25,000 36,000 Competitive 

Elko Field Office West Wendover 

Project, LLC 

09/26/2006 56,000 320 100,000 280,000 Competitive 

Elko Field Office NRLL East, LLC 09/26/2006 12,000 40 9,000 12,000 Competitive 

Elko Field Office Rabab Mardini 11/09/2006 175,000 80 65,000 175,000 Competitive 

Elko Field Office NRLL East, LLC 09/26/2006 20,000 120 20,000 20,000 Competitive 

Ely Field Office Steven Klomp 06/19/2003 15,000 1.25 5,000 15,000 Direct 

Ely Field Office Mt. Wheeler Power, 

Inc. 

07/23/2002 11,000 5 11,000 11,000 Competitive 

Ely Field Office City of Caliente 12/30/2002 150,000 105.21 150,000 150,000 Direct 

Las Vegas Field Office Jon and Robin I 

Hadley 

06/16/2005 25,000 1.25 69,000 125,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Adriana Velez 12/05/2005 104,000 1.25 69,000 125,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Varinder Singh 12/12/2005 125,000 1.25 69,000 165,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Nye County, Nevada 03/03/2003 47,900 10.66 47,900 47,900 Direct 

Las Vegas Field Office Scott Gaughan 08/02/2005 400,000 80 290,000 400,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Scott Gaughan 02/03/2005 200,000 160 16,000 200,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Scott Gaughan 02/03/2005 225,000 119.16 10,000 225,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office State of Nevada, 

Division of State 

Lands 

05/07/2004 123,944 22.5 124,000 124,000 Direct 

Las Vegas Field Office D.J. Laughlin 07/20/2006 3,450,000 20 2,280,000 3,450,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Hamid Michael 

Mahban 

12/12/2005 425,000 5 275,000 425,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Darrell Hammer 06/16/2005 420,000 5 275,000 420,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Hamid Michael 

Mahban 

12/12/2005 200,000 2.5 138,000 200,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office The Crescent Group, 

LLC 

12/09/2005 200,000 2.5 138,000 200,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office John W. Luther 10/20/2005 195,000 2.5 138,000 195,000 Competitive 

Page 55 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
Appendix II: Completed FLTFA Land Sales, 

through May 2007 

State and office Customer 

Transaction 

date 

Amount 

collected Acreage

Fair market 

value Sale price

Disposal 

method 

Las Vegas Field Office Patrick Paoli 12/08/2005 195,000 2.5 138,000 195,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Philip Davis 12/12/2005 195,000 2.5 138,000 195,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Philip Davis 12/12/2005 210,000 2.5 138,000 210,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Philip Davis 12/12/2005 260,000 2.5 138,000 260,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Philip Davis 12/12/2005 275,000 2.5 138,000 275,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Philip Davis 12/12/2005 495,000 5 275,000 495,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Philip Davis 12/12/2005 600,000 5 275,000 600,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office The Crescent Group, 

LLC 

12/09/2005 130,000 1.25 69,000 130,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office John Koster 06/16/2005 135,000 1.25 69,000 135,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Hardy Properties, LLC 12/08/2005 120,000 1.25 69,000 120,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Robert Dale Beck 06/16/2005 125,000 1.25 69,000 125,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Rajwinder Dhaliwal 12/06/2005 110,000 1.25 69,000 110,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Lizette Harvey 12/07/2005 117,500 1.25 69,000 117,500 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Muscle Investments, 

LLC 

01/05/2006 105,000 1.25 69,000 105,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office The Crescent Group, 

LLC 

12/09/2005 110,000 1.25 69,000 110,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Mary Borges 12/09/2005 115,000 1.25 69,000 115,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Sean Afshar 12/12/2005 130,000 1.25 69,000 130,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Edward Van Sloten 06/16/2005 160,000 1.25 69,000 160,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Jeffry Yelland 06/16/2005 170,000 1.25 69,000 170,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Varinder Singh 12/12/2005 150,000 1.25 69,000 150,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office William Berdie Jr. 12/05/2005 125,000 1.25 69,000 125,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Sean Afshar 12/12/2005 137,500 1.25 69,000 137,500 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office John Hadley 12/06/2005 100,000 1.25 69,000 100,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Ermila Picking 06/16/2005 26,000 1.25 69,000 26,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Sean Afshar 12/12/2005 130,000 1.25 69,000 130,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Louise Myers 12/07/2005 130,000 1.25 69,000 130,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Varinder Singh 12/12/2005 165,000 1.25 69,000 165,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Sean Afshar 12/12/2005 200,000 1.25 69,000 200,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Sean Afshar 12/12/2005 167,500 1.25 69,000 167,500 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Sean Afshar 12/12/2005 172,500 1.25 69,000 172,500 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Sean Afshar 12/12/2005 172,500 1.25 69,000 172,500 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office James Hunter 12/08/2005 135,000 1.25 69,000 135,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office James Hunter 12/08/2005 140,000 1.25 69,000 140,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Shane and Karen 

Lapier 

10/27/2005 125,000 1.25 69,000 125,000 Competitive 

Page 56 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
Appendix II: Completed FLTFA Land Sales, 

through May 2007 

State and office Customer 

Transaction 

date 

Amount 

collected Acreage

Fair market 

value Sale price

Disposal 

method 

Las Vegas Field Office Joanne Phillips 06/16/2005 130,000 1.25 69,000 130,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Sean Afshar 12/12/2005 187,500 1.25 69,000 187,500 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Sean Afshar 12/12/2005 202,500 1.25 69,000 202,500 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Sean Afshar 12/12/2005 194,000 1.25 69,000 194,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Sean Afshar 12/12/2005 195,000 1.25 69,000 195,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Ominet Laughlin, LLC 05/12/2006 8,000,000 80 7,040,000 8,000,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Laughlin Properties, 

LLC 

12/08/2005 2,275,000 20 1,860,000 2,275,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Terraspec 

Development, LLC 

12/09/2005 850,000 5 540,000 850,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office DJL Enterprises, LLC 12/06/2005 5,150,000 50 5,150,000 5,150,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office DJL Enterprises, LLC 12/06/2005 7,275,000 40 4,800,000 7,275,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office D.J. Laughlin 12/06/2005 4,140,000 20 2,280,000 4,140,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office DJL Enterprises, LLC 12/06/2005 3,325,000 20 2,160,000 3,325,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Peter Horne dba Halo 

Realty Investments 

08/29/2005 202,500 2.9 128,000 202,500 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Hardy Properties, LLC 12/08/2005 170,000 2.91 127,000 170,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Lily Ripley 12/12/2005 95,000 2.9 93,000 95,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Skyline West 

Investments 

12/12/2005 187,500 2.9 142,000 187,500 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Hardy Properties, LLC 12/08/2005 182,500 2.92 131,000 182,500 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Brooke Ann Mrofcza 12/08/2005 153,000 2.93 117,000 153,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Brooke Ann Mrofcza 12/08/2005 161,000 2.92 131,000 161,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Silver State Schools 

Credit Union 

11/08/2005 92,000 2.92 88,000 92,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Foundation Capital 

Preservation Trust 

12/22/2005 160,000 2.91 131,000 160,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Hardy Properties, LLC 12/08/2005 167,000 2.92 131,000 167,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Denise Ware 09/19/2005 220,000 2.91 131,000 220,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Hardy Properties, LLC 12/08/2005 200,000 2.91 160,000 200,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Hardy Properties, LLC 12/08/2005 150,000 2.9 90,000 150,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Hardy Properties, LLC 12/08/2005 170,000 2.9 131,000 170,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Foundation Capital 

Preservation Trust 

12/22/2005 161,000 2.9 64,000 161,000 Competitive 

Las Vegas Field Office Melvin Henry 

Cavanaugh Jr. 

12/12/2005 112,000 2.89 52,000 112,000 Competitive 

Tonopah Field Station The Botner 1992 

Family Trust 

07/16/2004 5,500 1.35 5,500 5,500 Direct 

Page 57 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
Appendix II: Completed FLTFA Land Sales, 

through May 2007 

State and office Customer 

Transaction 

date 

Amount 

collected Acreage

Fair market 

value Sale price

Disposal 

method 

Tonopah Field Station Fred and Florita 

McMillen III 

12/18/2003 42,000 7.5 42,000 42,000 Direct 

Tonopah Field Station Nye County 

Commissioners 

06/26/2003 180,000 11.71 180,000 180,000 Direct 

Tonopah Field Station James Key 07/15/2003 16,000 2.5 16,000 16,000 Direct 

Tonopah Field Station John Maurer 03/07/2003 16,000 80 16,000 16,000 Direct 

Tonopah Field Station Rockview Dairies, Inc. 05/04/2004 480,000 320 480,000 480,000 Modified 

competitive 

Tonopah Field Station Ponderosa Dairy 04/22/2004 144,000 120 144,000 144,000 Direct 

Winnemucca Field 

Office 

Verna Wallace 07/30/2003 11,000 40 11,000 11,000 Direct 

Winnemucca Field 

Office 

Pershing County, 

Nevada 

07/27/2000 44,000 350 44,000 44,000 Direct 

Winnemucca Field 

Office 

RDD, Inc. 11/24/2000 71,500 953.56 71,500 71,500 Direct 

Winnemucca Field 

Office 

W. Krys Palulis 04/29/2003 31,200 80 26,000 28,080 Competitive 

Winnemucca Field 

Office 

Vince Wavra 06/14/2005 28,000 160 28,000 28,000 Competitive 

Winnemucca Field 

Office 

Home Ranch, LLC 06/14/2005 56,000 319.95 28,000 56,000 Competitive 

Winnemucca Field 

Office 

Vince Wavra 06/14/2005 29,047 160.48 28,084 29,047 Competitive 

Winnemucca Field 

Office 

Home Ranch, LLC 06/14/2005 42,000 240 42,000 42,000 Competitive 

New Mexico 

Carlsbad Field Office Ray Westall 07/31/2001 20,000 5 20,000 20,000 Direct 

Farmington Field Office Clifford Martinez 12/18/2003 25,700 4.6 25,700 25,700 Direct 

Farmington Field Office Charles and Joan 

Eavenson 

12/19/2002 10,600 0.52 10,600 10,600 Direct 

Farmington Field Office Tonie Martinez 10/18/2004 18,000 3.6 18,000 18,000 Direct 

Las Cruces District 

Office 

Our Lady’s Youth 

Center 

02/26/2002 230,400 320 288,000 256,000 Direct 

Las Cruces District 

Office 

Mesa Farmers Coop 04/19/2006 2,070,000 396.34 879,000 2,070,000 Competitive 

Las Cruces District 

Office 

Philippou, LLC 01/20/2005 1,600,000 39.47 850,000 1,600,000 Competitive 

Pecos District Office Joe Cox 02/16/2006 2,000 5 2,000 2,000 Direct 

Taos Field Office Robert Montoya 02/26/2002 15,000 0.38 15,000 15,000 Direct 

Taos Field Office Manuel Vigil 02/26/2002 500 0.13 500 500 Direct 

Taos Field Office Robert Anaya 04/15/2003 20,840 1.33 29,600 20,840 Direct 

Page 58 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
Appendix II: Completed FLTFA Land Sales, 

through May 2007 

State and office Customer 

Transaction 

date 

Amount 

collected Acreage

Fair market 

value Sale price

Disposal 

method 

Taos Field Office Joseph Chipman 09/06/2006 28,000 0.5 28,000 28,000 Direct 

Taos Field Office Heirs of Benerito 

Ortega 

03/07/2006 8,470 1.2 8,470 8,470 Direct 

Taos Field Office Lafayette Rodriguez 04/19/2006 3,290 0.4 3,290 3,290 Direct 

Oregon 

Burns District Office American Exchange 

Services, Inc. 

02/26/2002 36,000 360 36,000 36,000 Competitive 

Burns District Office Delmer Clemens 02/26/2002 20,888 399.19 26,000 26,110 Competitive 

Burns District Office Delmer and Teresa 

Clemens 

02/26/2002 5,200 80.63 5,200 5,200 Competitive 

Burns District Office Jon Woodworth 02/26/2002 12,560 157 15,700 15,700 Competitive 

Burns District Office John and Judy 

Ahmann 

02/26/2002 6,451 80 8,000 8,101 Competitive 

Burns District Office Fort Harney Ranch 02/26/2002 14,400 246.88 16,000 18,000 Competitive 

Burns District Office Louis Borelli III 02/26/2002 15,000 80 8,000 15,000 Competitive 

Burns District Office Marcia Eggleston 02/26/2002 3,800 40 3,600 3,800 Modified 

competitive 

Burns District Office Marcia Eggleston 02/26/2002 4,000 40 3,600 4,000 Modified 

competitive 

Burns District Office Richard Boatwright Jr. 02/26/2002 36,000 200 20,000 36,000 Competitive 

Burns District Office Thomas and Barbara 

Howard 

02/26/2002 29,000 320 28,800 29,000 Modified 

competitive 

Burns District Office Thomas and Barbara 

Howard 

02/26/2002 4,000 40 3,600 4,000 Competitive 

Burns District Office Bill Wilber 02/26/2002 8,000 80 8,000 8,000 Competitive 

Burns District Office Ray Drayton 09/10/2003 8,400 79.79 5,600 8,400 Competitive 

Burns District Office George Davis 02/26/2002 1,860 79.79 7,200 aCompetitive 

Burns District Office Bell A. Grazing 02/26/2002 14,400 160 14,400 14,400 Modified 

competitive 

Burns District Office Bell A. Grazing 02/26/2002 10,800 120 10,800 10,800 Modified 

competitive 

Burns District Office Bell A. Grazing 02/26/2002 3,600 40 3,600 3,600 Modified 

competitive 

Burns District Office Martin and Andrea 

Davies 

02/26/2002 7,200 80 7,200 7,200 Modified 

competitive 

Burns District Office Maurice and Norma 

Davies 

02/26/2002 8,000 80 8,000 8,000 Competitive 

Burns District Office Jon Cicin 02/26/2002 8,250 80 7,200 8,250 Competitive 

Burns District Office Van Grazing 

Cooperative, Inc. 

10/28/2002 24,000 120 24,000 24,000 Modified 

competitive 

Page 59 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
Appendix II: Completed FLTFA Land Sales, 

through May 2007 

State and office Customer 

Transaction 

date 

Amount 

collected Acreage

Fair market 

value Sale price

Disposal 

method 

Burns District Office Van Grazing 

Cooperative, Inc. 

07/01/2002 8,000 40 8,000 8,000 Modified 

competitive 

Burns District Office David and Rachel 

Boyd 

09/11/2003 40,000 320 40,000 40,000 Competitive 

Burns District Office Lynn Deguire 02/24/2006 21,202 145.56 21,100 21,202 Competitive 

Burns District Office Lynn Deguire 12/08/2005 3,602 40 3,600 3,602 Competitive 

Burns District Office Gary Marshall 02/06/2007 3,710 40 3,400 3,710 Competitive 

Burns District Office Dylan Decelis 02/09/2005 650 40 3,200 aCompetitive 

Burns District Office Ray Drayton 01/02/2004 11,700 160 11,200 11,700 Competitive 

Burns District Office Carolyn and David 

Mooers 

11/12/2003 87,000 160 24,800 87,000 Competitive 

Burns District Office Vera Hotchkiss 08/13/2003 15,900 109.42 15,900 15,900 Competitive 

Burns District Office DJ Miller Ranches 08/14/2003 15,258 80 12,800 15,258 Competitive 

Burns District Office Jerry Temple 02/24/2006 3,000 40 3,000 3,000 Modified 

competitive 

Burns District Office Jerry Temple 01/23/2004 3,050 40 3,000 3,050 Modified 

competitive 

Burns District Office Tom and Diane 

Grant Jr. 

09/10/2003 3,000 40 2,600 3,000 Competitive 

Burns District Office Tyler Brothers 12/11/2003 30,000 160 16,600 30,000 Competitive 

Burns District Office Tyler Brothers 12/11/2003 15,000 160 11,600 15,000 Modified 

competitive 

Burns District Office Tyler Brothers 12/11/2003 3,050 40.62 3,050 3,050 Modified 

competitive 

Burns District Office Tyler Brothers 02/24/2006 5,800 80 5,800 5,800 Modified 

competitive 

Burns District Office Joseph and Lois 

Eckley 

01/13/2004 8,500 80 6,000 8,500 Competitive 

Burns District Office Ray Drayton 09/10/2003 12,000 120 8,400 12,000 Competitive 

Burns District Office Ray Drayton 01/02/2004 3,310 40 3,000 3,310 Competitive 

Burns District Office Joseph and Lois 

Eckley 

08/14/2003 3,150 39.18 3,150 3,150 Competitive 

Burns District Office Zack Sword 02/12/2004 8,400 120 8,400 8,400 Modified 

competitive 

Burns District Office Shirley Thompson 02/05/2004 3,200 40 3,200 3,200 Modified 

competitive 

Burns District Office Zack Sword 02/12/2004 3,200 40 3,200 3,200 Modified 

competitive 

Burns District Office John Ahmann 12/14/2006 3,200 80 16,000 16,000 Modified 

competitive 

Burns District Office William Dunbar 01/22/2007 22,800 119.53 22,700 22,800 Competitive 

Page 60 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
Appendix II: Completed FLTFA Land Sales, 

through May 2007 

State and office Customer 

Transaction 

date 

Amount 

collected Acreage

Fair market 

value Sale price

Disposal 

method 

Burns District Office Gerard Labrecque 12/13/2006 1,000 0.51 200 1,000 Modified 

competitive 

Burns District Office Ray Drayton 03/08/2007 48,500 160 21,600 48,500 Competitive 

Burns District Office Daniel and Denise 

Kryger 

12/13/2006 18,400 240 58,100 92,000 Competitive 

Burns District Office Terry and Donald 

Cutsforth/Wagner 

05/23/2007 32,000 80 9,100 32,000 Competitive 

Burns District Office G. Edward Barnes 05/17/2007 16,100 79.81 9,200 16,100 Competitive 

Burns District Office Terry and Donald 

Cutsforth/Wagner 

05/23/2007 46,000 119.76 19,100 46,000 Competitive 

Burns District Office Tracy Hill 01/30/2007 16,800 160 16,800 16,800 Competitive 

Burns District Office Ray Drayton 12/13/2006 12,780 200 19,600 63,900 Competitive 

Burns District Office Morris Family Trust 01/18/2007 8,000 80 8,000 8,000 Competitive 

Burns District Office Heather Harris 05/24/2007 8,000 80 8,000 8,000 Competitive 

Burns District Office Joseph Stefanowitz 03/07/2007 56,100 80 9,800 56,100 Competitive 

Burns District Office Bell A. Grazing 05/14/2007 6,800 80 6,800 6,800 Modified 

competitive 

Burns District Office Bell A. Grazing 05/14/2007 3,900 40 3,900 3,900 Modified 

competitive 

Burns District Office Shirley Thompson 12/14/2006 1,990 120 9,700 9,700 Modified 

competitive 

Burns District Office Shirley Thompson 12/14/2006 690 40 3,200 3,200 Modified 

competitive 

Burns District Office Shirley Thompson 12/14/2006 690 40 3,200 3,200 Modified 

competitive 

Burns District Office James Drayton 03/30/2007 73,200 440 48,400 73,200 Competitive 

Burns District Office Peter Barry 12/14/2006 9,400 240 28,800 47,000 Competitive 

Burns District Office Stanley and Gale 

Kazebee/Nelson 

12/14/2006 30,200 160 18,400 151,000 Competitive 

Burns District Office Rattlesnake Creek 

Land and Cattle 

Company, LLC 

12/14/2006 6,640 185.81 33,100 33,200 Modified 

competitive 

Burns District Office Stanley Kull 12/18/2006 7,200 40 7,200 7,200 Modified 

competitive 

Eugene District Office Harold Leahy and 

Kieran, Attorneys At 

Law 

10/10/2002 2,350 3.74 22,700 23,500 Modified 

competitive 

Eugene District Office Western Pioneer Title 

Company 

03/05/2002 1,500 1.72 1,500 1,500 Direct 

Eugene District Office James Bean 08/21/2006 10,000 0.45 10,000 10,000 Direct 

Eugene District Office Tony and Sonya 

Bratton 

12/04/2003 1,100 0.16 1,100 1,100 Direct 

Page 61 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
Appendix II: Completed FLTFA Land Sales, 

through May 2007 

State and office Customer 

Transaction 

date 

Amount 

collected Acreage

Fair market 

value Sale price

Disposal 

method 

Lakeview District Office Donald Rajnus 02/26/2002 10,000 80 10,000 10,000 Direct 

Lakeview District Office Kennedy Land Co, 

LLC 

12/09/2002 10,900 119.76 10,900 10,900 Direct 

Lakeview District Office Meadow Lake, Inc. 02/26/2002 18,200 120.12 18,200 18,200 Direct 

Lakeview District Office Virginia Rajnus 02/26/2002 5,600 80 5,600 5,600 Direct 

Lakeview District Office Alston Bruner 12/02/2004 3,600 40 3,600 3,600 Modified 

competitive 

Lakeview District Office Alan Withers 05/24/2006 4,000 40.24 4,000 4,000 Direct 

Prineville District Office Mont West 02/26/2002 1,800 0.43 1,800 1,800 Direct 

Roseburg District Office Douglas County 08/17/2004 7,254 0.08 7,254 7,254 Direct 

Vale District Office George and Joanne 

Voile 

02/10/2005 3,300 11.25 3,300 3,300 Direct 

Utah 

St. George Field Office City of St. George 02/26/2002 177,000 26.18 177,000 177,000 Direct 

Wyoming 

Lander Field Office State of Wyoming 03/21/2003 1,500 10.27 1,500 1,500 Direct 

Newcastle Field Office Dennis Drayton 02/26/2002 7,200 80 7,200 7,200 Competitive 

Newcastle Field Office John Hiller 02/26/2002 3,650 40 3,650 3,650 Competitive 

Newcastle Field Office W. O’Kief 02/26/2002 3,600 40 3,600 3,600 Competitive 

Newcastle Field Office Thomas Randall 02/26/2002 3,611 40 3,611 3,611 Competitive 

Newcastle Field Office George Paul 01/17/2003 28,200 39.56 28,200 28,200 Modified 

competitive 

Newcastle Field Office Richard and Beth 

Schuetz 

11/12/2002 36,800 42.44 36,800 36,800 Modified 

competitive 

Pinedale Field Office William Mayo 02/26/2002 16,600 40 16,600 16,600 Direct 

Rawlins Field Office Baggs Solid Waste 

Disposal District 

02/26/2002 9,600 120 3,600 3,600 Direct 

Rock Springs Field 

Office 

David J. Palmer 02/26/2002 2,200 0.06 2,200 2,200 Direct 

Rock Springs Field 

Office 

PacifiCorp 05/03/2004 722,500 722.5 722,500 722,500 Direct 

Worland Field Office Mary A. Clay 

Revocable Trust 

03/20/2006 1,924 3.75 1,924 1,924 Direct 

Worland Field Office Robert Gilmore Griffin 08/19/2002 2,700 30 2,700 2,700 Direct 

Source: GAO analysis of information from BLM Division of Business Services and state offices.

a

Information not provided. 

Page 62 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
Appendix III: Detailed Information on 

Planned FLTFA Land Sales through 2010, as 

Reported by BLM State Offices 

State/Field Office Acreage Fair market value Sale method Disposal reason 

Arizona 

Arizona Strip Field Office 118.8 $aCompetitive Management inefficiency 

Hassayampa Field Office 1,030 aCompetitive Community development 

Lower Sonoran Field Office 17 aDirect Trespass resolution 

Lower Sonoran Field Office 55.5 110,900 Direct Management inefficiency 

Tucson Field Office 69 aModified competitive Trespass resolution 

Yuma Field Office 1,000 aCompetitive Community development 

Yuma Field Office 300 aCompetitive Management inefficiency 

Yuma Field Office 50 aCompetitive Community development 

California 

Bishop Field Office 0.25 aDirect Difficult and uneconomic to manage, 

inadvertent trespass 

Folsom Field Office 11 aDirect Difficult and uneconomic to manage, 

inadvertent trespass 

Redding Field Office 0.07 aDirect Difficult and uneconomic to manage fragment, 

inadvertent trespass 

Redding Field Office 80 aCompetitive Not needed for federal purposes, difficult and 

uneconomic to manage 

Redding Field Office 160 aDirect Not needed for federal purposes, buffer to 

landfill 

Colorado 

Gunnison Field Office 0.76 7,000 Direct Inadvertent occupancy of public land 

Royal Gorge Field Office 0.09 a Direct To resolve historic, unauthorized residential 

use 

Royal Gorge Field Office 0.40 aDirect To resolve historic, unauthorized residential 

use 

Royal Gorge Field Office 0.53 aDirect To resolve historic, unauthorized residential 

use 

Royal Gorge Field Office 2.99 aDirect To resolve historic, unauthorized residential 

use 

Royal Gorge Field Office 1.61 aDirect To resolve historic, unauthorized residential 

use 

Royal Gorge Field Office 0.39 aDirect To resolve historic, unauthorized residential 

use 

Royal Gorge Field Office 0.42 a Direct To resolve historic, unauthorized residential 

use 

Royal Gorge Field Office 0.17 aDirect To resolve historic, unauthorized residential 

use 

Royal Gorge Field Office 0.44 aDirect To resolve historic, unauthorized residential 

use 

Appendix III: Detailed Information on 

Planned FLTFA Land Sales through 2010, as 

Reported by BLM State Offices 

Page 63 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
Appendix III: Detailed Information on 

Planned FLTFA Land Sales through 2010, as 

Reported by BLM State Offices 

State/Field Office Acreage Fair market value Sale method Disposal reason 

Royal Gorge Field Office 0.27 aDirect To resolve historic, unauthorized residential 

use 

Royal Gorge Field Office 2.09 aDirect To resolve historic, unauthorized residential 

use 

Royal Gorge Field Office 7 aCompetitive To resolve historic, unauthorized residential 

use 

San Juan Public Lands Center 36.92 aUndetermined Meets resource management plan criteria for 

disposal 

San Juan Public Lands Center 40 aDirect Land needed by county 

San Juan Public Lands Center 2.11 aDirect Strip 40 ft. X 2560 ft. landowner needs 

San Juan Public Lands Center 40 248,000 Direct Meets resource management plan criteria for 

disposal 

Idaho 

Challis Field Office 80 aDirect Existing shooting range 

Challis Field Office 100 aDirect Waste transfer site 

Challis Field Office 11.34 aDirect Existing waste disposal site 

Challis Field Office 127 aDirect Existing waste disposal site 

Challis Field Office 302 aDirect Difficult and uneconomic to manage 

Challis Field Office 104 172,000 Modified competitive Difficult and uneconomic to manage 

Coeur d’Alene Field Office 2.97 50,000 Direct Color of Title Act 

Coeur d’Alene Field Office 9.4 159,800 Direct Color of Title Act 

Coeur d’Alene Field Office 1 aDirect Trespass 

Coeur d’Alene Field Office 5.07 aDirect Trespass 

Four Rivers Field Office 2,995.54 721,361 Competitive Isolated 

Four Rivers Field Office 80 1,600,000 Competitive Isolated 

Shoshone Field Office 120 aDirect a 

Shoshone Field Office 1.62 aDirect a

Shoshone Field Office 40 aDirect a

Shoshone Field Office 262.21 aDirect a

Nevada 

Battle Mountain Field Office 0.5 12,500 Direct a

Battle Mountain Field Office 569.34 115,000 Modified competitive a

Battle Mountain Field Office 2.65 20,000 Direct a

Battle Mountain Field Office 878.34 439,000 Competitive a

Carson City Field Office 56.25 1,450,000 Competitive a

Carson City Field Office 370 165,000 Direct a

Carson City Field Office 628.2 1,300,000 Competitive a

Carson City Field Office 240 6,000,000 Competitive a

Elko Field Office 640 130,000 Competitive a

Page 64 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
Appendix III: Detailed Information on 

Planned FLTFA Land Sales through 2010, as 

Reported by BLM State Offices 

State/Field Office Acreage Fair market value Sale method Disposal reason 

Elko Field Office 640 120,000 Competitive a

Elko Field Office 640 125,000 Competitive a

Elko Field Office 640 115,000 Competitive a

Elko Field Office 640 110,000 Competitive a

Elko Field Office 360 75,000 Competitive a

Elko Field Office 1,440 200,000 Competitive a

Elko Field Office 2,560 300,000 Competitive a

Elko Field Office 80 50,000 Competitive a

Ely Field Office 217 217,000 Direct a

Ely Field Office 159 160,000 Competitive a

Las Vegas Field Office 292.46 965,118 Direct a

Winnemucca Field Office 382.5 396,000 Direct a

Winnemucca Field Office 1,440 144,000 Competitive a

Winnemucca Field Office 440 44,000 Competitive a

Winnemucca Field Office 1,214 212,000 Competitive a

Winnemucca Field Office 40 120,000 Direct a

New Mexico 

Farmington Field Office 80 2,000,000 Direct Competitive public interest, expansion of 

community and economic development 

Las Cruces District Office 166.59 aCompetitive Competitive public interest, expansion of 

community and economic development 

Las Cruces District Office 180 aCompetitive Competitive public interest, expansion of 

community and economic development 

Las Cruces District Office 139.77 aCompetitive Competitive public interest, expansion of 

community and economic development 

Las Cruces District Office 140.39 a Competitive Competitive public interest, expansion of 

community and economic development 

Las Cruces District Office 400 3,500,000 Competitive Competitive public interest, expansion of 

community and economic development 

Las Cruces District Office 160 aCompetitive Competitive public interest, expansion of 

community and economic development 

Rio Puerco Field Office 0.48 aDirect To resolve an unintentional, unauthorized 

occupancy 

Taos Field Office 6 aCompetitive Competitive public interest, expansion of 

community and economic development 

Utah 

Kanab Field Office 120 170,000 Modified competitive Isolated parcel 

Moab Field Office 50 50,000 Direct To resolve unauthorized use (agricultural) 

Richfield Field Office 4.82 aDirect To resolve unauthorized use (occupancy) 

St. George Field Office 145 14,000,000 Competitive a

Page 65 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
Appendix III: Detailed Information on 

Planned FLTFA Land Sales through 2010, as 

Reported by BLM State Offices 

State/Field Office Acreage Fair market value Sale method Disposal reason 

Vernal Field Office 62.5 1,000 Direct Accommodate use on adjoining lands (sewage 

treatment ponds) 

Vernal Field Office 30 13,450 Direct Resolve unauthorized use (agricultural) 

Wyoming 

Casper Field Office 20 aDirect Community expansion 

Kemmerer Field Office 120 aDirect Landfill expansion 

Newcastle Field Office 1.34 aDirect Resolution of trespass 

Newcastle Field Office 2.27 aCompetitive Community expansion 

Rawlins Field Office 640 aModified competitive Community expansion 

Rawlins Field Office 40 aModified competitive Community expansion 

Rock Springs Field Office 40 aDirect Resolution of an occupancy trespass 

Rock Springs Field Office 820 aDirect Plant expansion 

Rock Springs Field Office 39.1 aUndetermined Resolution of an occupancy trespass 

Rock Springs Field Office 157.24 aCompetitive Industrial expansion 

Source: GAO analysis of information from BLM’s state offices. 

a

Information not provided. 

Page 66 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of the Interior 

Page 67 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 

Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Department of the Interior 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of the Interior 

Page 68 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of the Interior 

Page 69 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 
Appendix V: 

A

GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 70 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management 

Robin N. Nazzaro, (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov

In addition to those named above, Andrea Wamstad Brown, Assistant 

Director; Mark Keenan; Emily Larson; John Scott; and Rebecca Shea made 

key contributions to this report. Also contributing to the report were 

Anthony Covacevich, Rich Johnson, Paul Kinney, and Carol Herrnstadt 

Shulman. 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(360760) 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, DC 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER