Department of the Interior: Major Management Challenges
Published: 2011-03-01T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Department of the Interior (Interior) is responsible for managing much of the nation's vast natural resources. Its agencies implement an array of programs intended to protect these resources for future generations while also allowing certain uses of them, such as recreation and oil and gas development. In some cases, Interior is authorized to collect royalties and fees for these uses. Over the years, GAO has reported on management challenges at Interior, which are largely characterized by the struggle to balance the demand for greater use of its resources with the need to conserve and protect them. Furthermore, given the government's long-term fiscal challenges, Interior faces difficult choices in balancing its responsibilities. This testimony highlights some of the major management challenges facing Interior today. It is based on prior GAO reports.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: As GAO's previous work has shown, Interior faces major management challenges in the following seven areas: (1) Strengthening resource protection: Interior has not yet developed a cohesive strategy to address wildland fire issues as GAO has recommended in the past. In addition, Interior faces challenges in adapting to climate change and protecting and securing federal lands from illegal activities. (2) Strengthening the accountability of Indian and insular area programs: Having a land base is important to Indian tribal governments. Concerns remain about the effect of a February 2009 Supreme Court decision on the process for taking land in trust for tribes and their members. In addition, seven insular areas--four U.S. territories and three sovereign island nations--continue to face financial, program management, and economic challenges. (3) Improving federal land acquisition and exchanges: As the steward of more than 500 million acres of federal land, land sales, acquisitions, and exchanges are important land management functions for the department. The Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act of 2000 has had limited success and Interior needs to better manage land exchanges and protect federal funds. (4) Reducing Interior's deferred maintenance backlog: While Interior has made progress improving information on maintenance needs, the dollar estimate of the deferred maintenance backlog for fiscal year 2010 was between $13.5 billion and $19.9 billion. (5) Management of federal oil and gas resources: GAO designated Interior's management of federal oil and gas resources as a governmentwide high-risk area in February 2011. Interior faces ongoing challenges in four broad areas: (1) oil and gas revenue collection, (2) management of human capital, (3) reorganization of the bureaus dealing with oil and gas issues, and (4) balancing timely and efficient oil and gas development with environmental stewardship responsibilities. (6) Generating revenue and enhancing financial assurances and bonds: Additional revenues could be generated by amending the General Mining Act of 1872 so that the federal government could collect federal royalties on minerals extracted from U.S. mineral rights. In addition, financial assurances and bonds from hardrock mining and oil and gas operations could be enhanced to help ensure the reclamation of federal land disturbed by these operations. (7) Improving information security: Interior has been challenged to effectively protect its computer systems and networks. The department has not consistently implemented effective controls to prevent, limit, and detect unauthorized access to its systems or manage the configuration of network devices to prevent unauthorized access and ensure system integrity.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO has made a number of recommendations intended to improve Interior's programs by enhancing the information it uses to manage its programs and strengthening internal controls. Interior has agreed with most of the recommendations and taken some steps to implement them. However, Interior has been slow to implement other recommendations, such as developing a cohesive wildland fire strategy and improving oversight of oil and gas activities.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: We are pleased to be here today to participate in your hearing on the  major management challenges at the Department of the Interior (Interior).  As the stewards for more than 500 million acres of federal land—about  one-fifth of the total U.S. landmass—and more than 1.7 billion acres of the  Outer Continental Shelf, Interior is responsible for a wide array of  programs to ensure that our nation’s natural resources are adequately  protected and that access to and use of those resources is appropriately  managed. Interior’s mission is to provide for the environmentally sound  production of oil, gas, minerals, and other resources found on the nation’s  public lands; honor the nation’s obligations to American Indians and  Alaska Natives; protect habitat to sustain fish and wildlife; help manage  water resources in western states; and provide scientific and technical  information to allow for sound decision-making about resources. In recent  years, Congress has appropriated more than $11 billion annually to meet  these responsibilities. With these resources, Interior employs about  70,000 people in eight major agencies and bureaus at more than  2,400 locations around the country to carry out its mission. Interior’s  management of this vast federal estate is largely characterized by the  struggle to balance the demand for greater use of its resources with the  need to conserve and protect them for the benefit of future generations.  Furthermore, given the federal deficit and the government’s long-term  fiscal challenges, Interior faces difficult choices in balancing its many  responsibilities and protecting and improving the condition of the nation’s  natural resources and the department’s infrastructure.
Our testimony today is an update of our March 2009 testimony before this  subcommittee on Interior’s major management challenges. Specifically,  we will discuss management challenges in seven key areas: (1) resource  protection; (2) Indian and insular area programs, which includes programs  for four U.S. territories and three sovereign island nations, among others;  (3) land acquisition and exchanges; (4) deferred maintenance; (5) federal  oil and gas resources; (6) generating other revenue collections and  enhancing financial assurances and bonds; and (7) improving information  security. Our testimony is based on findings from a number of reports we  have issued over the past few years on some of Interior’s natural resource  management programs. See the list of related GAO products at the end of  this statement. We conducted our work in accordance with all sections of  GAO’s Quality Assurance Framework that were relevant to the objectives  of each engagement. The framework requires that we plan and perform  each engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to meet  our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We  believe that the information and data obtained, and the analyses  conducted, provided a reasonable basis for the findings and conclusions in  each report.
subsections: section_title: Strengthening Resource Protection
paragraphs: In fulfilling its resource protection functions, Interior has faced a number  of management challenges in the past and will continue to face challenges  in the future. In particular, based on our recent work, we would like to  highlight three challenges in this area (1) protecting lives, property and  resources from wildland fires; (2) adapting to climate change; and  (3) protecting and securing federal lands from illegal activities.
subsections: section_title: Wildland Fire Management Challenges Persist
paragraphs: As we reported in our March 2009 testimony, Interior, working with the  Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service, has taken steps to help  manage perhaps the agency’s most daunting challenge—protecting lives,  private property, and federal resources from the threats of wildland fire.  However, our nation’s wildland fire problem worsened dramatically over  the past decade. The average annual acreage burned by wildland fires in  the 2000s is more than double that burned in the 1990s, and appropriations  for the federal government’s wildland management activities have tripled,  averaging approximately $3 billion annually in recent years, up from about  $1 billion in fiscal year 1999. While Agriculture’s Forest Service receives  about 70 percent of the appropriations, four Interior agencies—the Bureau  of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the U.S.  Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the National Park Service (NPS)— are key partners in the federal response to wildland fire. Therefore, most  of our work and recommendations on wildland fire management address  agencies in both departments.
In our March 2009 testimony we noted four primary areas we believed the  agencies needed to address to better respond to the nation’s wildland fire  problems. While the agencies have continued to make improvements in  these areas, as discussed below, work remains to be done in each. As a  result, we continue to believe that wildland fire management is a major  management challenge for Interior.
The agencies have not yet developed a cohesive strategy that identifies  options and associated funding to reduce potentially hazardous  vegetation and address wildland fire problems. For more than a decade,  we have recommended that the agencies develop a cohesive wildland fire  strategy that identifies potential long-term options for reducing fuels and  responding to fires that occur, and the funding requirements associated  with the various options. In 2009 Congress echoed our call for a cohesive  strategy in the Federal Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement  Act of 2009, which requires the agencies to produce a cohesive strategy  consistent with our recommendations. In response, Interior and the Forest  Service have prepared Phase I of the cohesive strategy, which, according  to a senior agency official, provides a general description of the agencies’  approach to the wildland fire problem and establishes a framework for  collecting and analyzing the information needed to assess the wildland fire  problem and make decisions about how to address it. The document has  not yet been made final or formally submitted to Congress as required by  the act, though the strategy was required to be submitted within 1 year of  the act’s 2009 passage. Once the document has been made final, the  agencies expect to begin drafting Phase II of the strategy, which,  according to this official, will involve the actual collection and analysis of  data and assessment of different options.
The agencies have not yet established clear goals and a strategy to help  contain wildland fire costs. Although the agencies have continued to take  steps intended to help contain wildland fire costs, they have not yet clearly  defined their cost-containment goals or developed a strategy for achieving  those goals. Without such fundamental steps, we believe the agencies will  have difficulty determining whether they are taking the most important  steps first, as well as the extent to which the steps they are taking will help  contain costs. While several agency documents discuss the agencies’ cost  containment goals and objectives at a high level, we believe these  documents lack the clarity and specificity needed by officials in the field  to help manage and contain wildland fire costs. We therefore continue to  believe that the agencies will be challenged in managing their cost- containment efforts and improving their ability to contain wildland fire  costs.
The agencies have continued to improve their processes for allocating  fuel reduction funds and selecting fuel reduction projects, but further  action is needed. Fuel reduction projects—using prescribed fire,  mechanical thinning, herbicides, grazing, or combinations of these  methods—are intended to remove or modify wildland fuel to reduce the  potential for severe wildland fires, lessen the damage caused by fires, limit  the spread of flammable invasive species, and restore and maintain  healthy ecosystems. In 2007 we identified several shortcomings in the  agencies’ processes for allocating fuel reduction funds and selecting fuel  reduction projects. While the agencies have continued to take steps to  improve these processes, we believe they will continue to face challenges  in more effectively using their limited fuel reduction dollars without the  improved processes we have previously recommended.
The agencies have not yet taken needed steps to improve the use of an  interagency budgeting and planning tool. Since 2008 we have been  concerned about Interior’s and the Forest Service’s development of a  planning tool known as fire program analysis (FPA). FPA is designed to  allow the agencies to analyze potential combinations of firefighting assets,  and potential strategies for reducing fuels and fighting fires, to identify the  most cost-effective among them. By identifying cost-effective  combinations of assets and strategies within the agencies, FPA was also  designed to help the agencies develop their wildland fire budget requests  and allocate resources across the country. However, FPA’s development  continues to be characterized by delays and revisions, and the agencies  are several years behind their initially projected timeline for using it to  help develop their budget requests. Although the agencies continue to take  steps to improve FPA as we recommended, it is not clear how effective  these steps will be in correcting the problems we have identified and  therefore we believe that the agencies will continue to face challenges in  this area.
section_title: Adapting to the Effects of Climate Change on Public Lands
paragraphs: As we stated in our March 2009 testimony, federal land and water  resources are vulnerable to a wide range of effects from climate change,  some of which are already occurring. According to experts, these effects  include (1) physical effects, such as droughts, floods, glacial melting, and  sea level rise; (2) biological effects, such as increases in insect and disease  infestations, shifts in species distribution, and changes in the timing of  natural events; and (3) economic and social effects, such as adverse  impacts on tourism, infrastructure, fishing, and other resource uses.  Furthermore, in August 2007, we reported that climate change impacts  compete for the attention of decisionmakers with more immediate  priorities. We found at that time that BLM, FWS, and NPS did not make  climate change a priority, and that their strategic plans did not specifically  address climate change. Our recent work related to flooding and erosion  in Alaska provides an example of how the effects of a warmer climate  have been clearly evident in Alaska. In June 2009, we reported that while  the flooding and erosion threats to Alaska Native villages have not been  completely assessed, since 2003, federal, state, and village officials have  identified 31 villages that face imminent threats. We suggested that  Congress consider the need for a federal lead to ensure that federal  resources are being prioritized and allocated efficiently and effectively.
In October 2009, we found that several federal agencies, including Interior,  had begun to consider measures that would strengthen the resilience of  natural resources in the face of climate change. In September 2009,  Interior issued an order designed to address the impacts of climate change  on the nation’s water, land, and other natural and cultural resources.
Among other things, the order requires each bureau and office to consider  and analyze potential climate change impacts when undertaking long- range planning exercises, setting priorities for scientific research and  investigations, developing multi-year management plans, and making  major decisions regarding potential use of resources. While we believe  that this is a step in the right direction, in a fiscally constrained  environment the department will continue to face challenges in setting  priorities and making resource allocation decisions to address the impacts  of climate change.
section_title: Protecting and Securing Federal Lands
paragraphs: Our recent work has also identified a challenge for Interior in the area of  protecting and securing federal lands from the effects of illegal activities.  BLM, FWS, and NPS are responsible for managing federal lands, enforcing  federal laws governing the lands and their resources, and ensuring visitor  safety. Illegal activities occurring on these lands have raised concerns that  the agencies are becoming less able to protect our natural and cultural  resources and ensure public safety. In December 2010, we reported that  although land management agencies consider varied information on the  occurrence and effects of illegal activities on federal lands, the agencies do  not systematically assess the risks posed by such activities when  determining their needs for resources and where to distribute them.  Without systematic approaches to assess the risks they face, the agencies  may have limited assurance that they are allocating scarce resources in a  manner that effectively addresses the risk of illegal activities on our  nation’s federal lands. In order to help the agencies better manage law  enforcement resources, we recommended that the agencies adopt a risk  management approach to systematically assess and address threats and  vulnerabilities presented by illegal activities on federal lands. Interior  concurred with our recommendation, and we continue to track its  implementation.
In addition, federal lands on the U.S. borders with Canada and Mexico are  vulnerable to illegal cross-border activity. In November 2010, we reported  that illegal cross-border activity remains a significant threat to federal  lands. Furthermore, there has been little interagency coordination to  share intelligence assessments of border security threats to federal lands  and develop budget requests, strategies, and joint operations to address  these threats. In October 2010, we also found that coordination challenges  between land management agencies and Border Patrol caused land  management and environmental laws to be implemented in such a way  that, at times, delayed or restricted Border Patrol’s access to and  monitoring of federal lands along the Southwest border. To more easily  balance public safety and access to federal borderlands and to help ensure  that Interior, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department  of Agriculture coordinate efforts to provide an effective interagency law  enforcement response on these lands, we made recommendations aimed  at improving interagency coordination. Interior agreed with our  recommendations, and we continue to track their implementation.
section_title: Strengthening the Accountability of Indian and Insular Area Programs
paragraphs: We have reported on management weaknesses in Indian and insular area  programs for a number of years. BIA continues to face challenges in  processing land in trust applications, and Interior’s Office of Insular  Affairs (OIA) continues to face challenges in providing assistance to  seven of the insular areas—four U.S. territories and three sovereign island  nations—with long-standing financial, program management, and  economic challenges.
subsections: section_title: Challenges Continue for BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications
paragraphs: BIA is the primary federal agency charged with implementing federal  Indian policy and administering the federal trust responsibility for about  2 million American Indians and Alaska Natives. BIA provides basic  services to 565 federally recognized Indian tribes throughout the United  States, including natural resources management on about 54 million acres  of Indian trust lands. Trust status means that the federal government holds  title to the land in trust for tribes or individual Indians; land taken in trust  is no longer subject to state and local property taxes and zoning  ordinances. In 1980 Interior established a regulatory process intended to  provide a uniform approach for taking land in trust. While some state and  local governments support the federal government’s taking additional land  in trust for tribes or individual Indians, others strongly oppose it because  of concerns about the impacts on their tax base and jurisdictional control.
We reported in 2006 that while BIA generally followed its regulations for  processing land in trust applications from tribes and individual Indians, it  had no deadlines for making decisions on them. While BIA has generally  responded to our recommendations to improve the processing of land in  trust applications, this issue continues to be a challenge, in part, because  of a February 24, 2009, Supreme Court decision. The court held that the  Indian Reorganization Act only authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to  take land into trust for a tribe or its members if that tribe was under  federal jurisdiction when the law was enacted in 1934. The court did not  define what constituted being under federal jurisdiction but did find that a  tribe, which was not federally recognized until 1983, was not under federal  jurisdiction in 1934. It is not clear how many tribes or pending land in trust  applications will be affected by this decision, but the decision raises a  question about the Secretary’s authority to take land in trust for the  50 tribes that have been newly recognized since 1960 and their members.   The Secretary’s decisions to take land in trust for two of these tribes—the  Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Potawatomi Indians of Michigan and  the Cowlitz Indian tribe of Washington—have been challenged in court.
section_title: Improve Effectiveness and Accountability for Insular Area Programs
paragraphs: The Secretary of the Interior has varying responsibilities to the insular  areas of American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern  Mariana Islands (CNMI), and the U.S. Virgin Islands, all of which are  U.S. territories, as well as to the Federated States of Micronesia, the  Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau, which are  sovereign nations linked with the United States through Compacts of Free  Association. OIA, which carries out the department’s responsibilities for  insular affairs, provides financial and technical assistance to the insular  areas in developing more efficient and effective governments and it helps  manage relations between the federal government and the insular area  governments by promoting appropriate federal policies. For example, OIA  is responsible for helping to implement federal policies related to CNMI  immigration and minimum wage increases in American Samoa and the  CNMI. The insular area governments have had long-standing financial and  program management deficiencies, in addition to facing economic  challenges. Our recent work related to the insular areas has focused on  concerns relative to OIA’s oversight of grants to insular areas, application  of U.S. immigration law to the CNMI, and minimum wage increases in  American Samoa and the CNMI.
In March 2010, we reported that opportunities exist for OIA to improve its  grant oversight and reduce the potential for mismanagement. OIA  provided approximately $400 million annually to financial assistance to  insular area governments—roughly $70 million of which is awarded  annually as grants to insular areas for capital improvement projects,  operations and maintenance improvement projects, technical assistance,  and other purposes, to increase the self-sufficiency of the insular areas.  We estimated that 39 percent of the 1,771 grant projects in OIA’s grant  management database at the time of our review demonstrated at least one  internal control weakness that may increase the projects’ susceptibility to  mismanagement. While we noted that OIA had taken a number of steps to  improve project implementation and management since 2005, we  recommended that Interior improve OIA’s ability to effectively manage  grants by taking several actions, including clarifying its authorities to  ensure insular areas use funds more efficiently, creating a workforce plan  to reflect the staffing levels necessary to adopt a proactive monitoring and  oversight approach, and developing criteria for project redirection request  approvals. Interior agreed with our recommendations and has since  developed the workforce plan.
Over the last few years we have also issued a number of reports on the  application of U.S. immigration law to the CNMI. U.S. law established  federal control of CNMI immigration beginning in 2009, with provisions  affecting employers’ access to foreign workers, investors, and visitors  during a transition period ending in 2014. Interior is specifically assigned  several responsibilities in implementing the law. During the transition  period, the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the  U.S. Secretaries of the Interior, Labor, and State and the U.S. Attorney  General, has the responsibility to establish, administer, and enforce a  transition program to regulate immigration in the CNMI, and decisions  regarding delays or extensions of the transition period also are in  consultation with Interior and other agencies. Furthermore, the legislation  requires Interior to provide technical assistance to the CNMI to promote  economic growth; to assist employers in recruiting, training, and hiring  U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents in the CNMI; and to develop  CNMI job skills as needed. To date, the U.S. Department of Homeland  Security has not issued final regulations for foreign workers, nor has it  made a permanent decision regarding access for visitors from Russia and  China. It issued regulations for foreign investors in December 2010. In  August 2008, we recommended that because of the importance of key  implementation decisions by different federal agencies, the Secretary of  Homeland Security should lead other relevant federal agencies, including  the Departments of the Interior, Labor, and State, in identifying the  interagency process that will be used to collaborate with one another— and consult with the CNMI government, as required—to jointly implement  the legislation. Interior agreed with our findings, and we continue to  track the law’s implementation.
In 2007 the United States enacted legislation that incrementally applies the  federal minimum wage to American Samoa and the CNMI. The legislation  changed decades of federal law that had allowed both areas to apply  minimum wage rates significantly lower than the minimum wage for the  U.S. 50 states. Under current law, the minimum wage for American  Samoa’s lowest paid workers will reach the federal minimum wage of  $7.25 in 2018; and in the CNMI this is set to occur in 2016. Public and  private sector officials and workers in both areas have expressed concern  about the impact of the minimum wage increases on the local economies.  Although the law does not assign Interior specific responsibilities, OIA is  generally responsible for promoting and managing government relations in  support of appropriate federal policies. In April 2010, we found that the  first minimum wage increase had raised the wages of about three-quarters  of private sector workers in American Samoa and about a third of private  sector workers in the CNMI. Employment in American Samoa and the  CNMI has declined for multiple reasons. Studies funded by Interior have  projected major additional contraction of both economies. These  economic realities pose a challenge to OIA as it tries to improve the  standard of living for island residents and promote the economic  development and self-sufficiency of the insular areas.
section_title: Improving Federal Land Acquisition and Exchanges
paragraphs: As the steward of more than 500 million acres, federal land sales,  acquisitions, and exchanges are important land management tools for  Interior. Interior has faced a number of management challenges in this  area in the past and our recent work has identified management  weaknesses in Interior’s oversight of land exchanges. As a result, we  believe that managing land acquisition and exchanges continues to be a  major management challenge for Interior.
In our March 2009 testimony, we stated that the Federal Land Transaction  Facilitation Act of 2000 (FLTFA) which, in part, was intended to facilitate  land consolidation, has had limited success. We reported that the agencies  face several challenges to completing future land acquisitions under the  act. 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 outside of  Nevada. In November 2009, we reported that since FLTFA was enacted in  2000 through August 2009, BLM had raised $113.4 million in revenue under  the act and that about 78 percent of this revenue came from land  transactions in Nevada. We also found that the four land management  agencies (BLM, FWS, NPS, and the Department of Agriculture’s Forest  Service) had purchased few parcels with FLTFA revenue. As of November  2009, BLM reported spending a total of $43.8 million to acquire 28 parcels,  including $24.6 million for 12 parcels using funds allocated through the  interagency process. While we suggested in our November 2009 report  that if Congress reauthorized the act that it should consider including  additional lands for sale and greater flexibility for acquisitions; the July  2010 reauthorization that extended the act for 1 year did not amend the  FLTFA provisions governing lands available for sale and acquisition. The  reauthorization occurred a few days after FLTFA expired. According to  BLM officials, at the time FLTFA expired, the unobligated program funds  were transferred to the Land and Water Conservation Fund and as of  November 2010 had not been restored to the program. Officials said that  BLM has little incentive to conduct further land sales under FLTFA  because of the cost and amount of work involved in preparing the sales  and, given the limited 1-year extension, the uncertainty that BLM and other  agencies will be able to use any revenues generated to acquire lands.
Our recent work has also identified challenges for Interior in managing  land exchanges. In June 2009, we reported on management weaknesses in  BLM’s oversight of land exchanges under the Federal Land Policy and  Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA).  Among other things, we reported that  BLM had issued new guidance on managing ledgers and continued to use  ledgers to track land value imbalances over time in multiphase  exchanges. However, we found that BLM was not adhering to its own  guidance for maintaining the ledgers and therefore could not be confident  in how much is owed to the federal government. Specifically, BLM could  not be assured that the $2.6 million land value imbalance due to the United  States, recorded in its ledgers as of June 30, 2008, was accurate. We  recommended that Interior take several steps to better manage the land  exchange program and protect federal funds. Although BLM has issued  additional and clarifying guidance, it has not yet developed a national  land tenure strategy, tracked land exchange costs, or required or tracked  specific training for staff working on land exchanges.
In addition, in December 2010, we issued a legal opinion concluding that  BLM carried out certain land transactions in the state of Washington that  were not authorized by FLPMA’s land exchange provisions and were  inconsistent with FLPMA’s land sale provisions. Specifically, we  concluded that the multiphase assembled land exchange consisted of a  series of transactions where an agent of BLM sold public lands and used  the proceeds to purchase nonfederal lands for BLM. The proceeds of these  sales were required to be deposited into appropriate funds in the U.S.  Treasury without deduction for any charge or claim. Instead, after selling  public lands, BLM used some of the proceeds to purchase lands. This  violated the Miscellaneous Receipts Statute. Furthermore, by using these  proceeds, BLM improperly augmented its land acquisition appropriations.
section_title: Reducing Interior’s Deferred Maintenance Backlog
paragraphs: As we testified in March 2009, Interior continues to face a challenge in  adequately maintaining its facilities and infrastructure. The department  owns, builds, purchases, and contracts services for assets such as visitor  centers, schools, office buildings, roads, bridges, dams, irrigation systems,  and reservoirs; however, repairs and maintenance on these facilities have  not been adequately funded. The deterioration of these facilities can  impair public health and safety, reduce employees’ morale and  productivity, and increase the need for costly major repairs or early  replacement of structures and equipment. In November 2010, the  department estimated that the deferred maintenance backlog for fiscal  year 2010 was between $13.5 billion and $19.9 billion (see table 1).
Interior has made progress addressing our prior recommendations to  improve information on the maintenance needs of NPS facilities and BIA  schools and irrigation projects. The high end of the deferred maintenance  has been relatively constant since 2007, when the estimate was  $19.8 billion. Furthermore, the deferred maintenance estimates for the  irrigation, dams, and other water structures category have decreased for  the past 2 consecutive years, 2009 and 2010. Interior was able to address  some needed repairs and improve the condition of some facilities through  funds it received under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of  2009.
section_title: Management of Federal Oil and Gas Resources
paragraphs: Interior’s management of oil and gas resources has been a focus of a large  body of our work and an area where we have found numerous weaknesses  and challenges that need to be addressed. In response to our  recommendations, Interior has taken steps to address material  weaknesses and modify its practices for managing oil and gas resources,  but as of December 2010, many recommendations remain unimplemented.  We designated Interior’s management of federal oil and gas resources as a  governmentwide high risk issue in February 2011. Interior faces ongoing  challenges executing its responsibilities to manage oil and gas production  from federal lands and waters in four broad areas: (1) oil and gas revenue  collection, (2) management of human capital, (3) the recently undertaken  reorganization of the bureaus dealing with oil and gas issues, and  (4) balancing timely and efficient oil and gas development with  environmental stewardship responsibilities.
Interior’s oversight of oil and gas operations is critically important. The  explosion onboard the Deepwater Horizon and oil spill in the Gulf of  Mexico in April 2010 emphasized the importance of Interior’s management  of permitting and inspection processes to ensure operational and  environmental safety. The National Commission on the BP Deepwater  Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling reported in January 2011 that this  disaster was the product of several individual missteps and oversights by  BP, Halliburton, and Transocean, which government regulators lacked the  authority, the necessary resources, or the technical expertise to prevent.
subsections: section_title: Concerns Over Revenue Collection
paragraphs: Federal oil and gas resources provide an important source of energy for  the United States, create jobs in the oil and gas industry, and generate  billions of dollars annually in revenues that are shared between federal,  state, and tribal governments. Revenue generated from federal oil and gas  production is one of the largest nontax sources of federal government  funds, accounting for about $9 billion in fiscal year 2009. In September  2008, we reported that in the deep water of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico,  Interior collected lower levels of revenues for oil and gas production than  all but 11 of 104 oil and gas resource owners whose revenue collection  systems were evaluated in a comprehensive industry study—these  resource owners included many other countries as well as some states.  We recommended that Interior undertake a comprehensive reassessment  of its revenue collection policies and processes. Interior has  commissioned such a study in response to our report, which it expects to  complete in 2011. The results of the study may reveal the potential for  greater revenues to the federal government. We also reported in  March 2010 that Interior was not taking the steps needed to ensure that oil  and gas produced from federal lands was accurately measured. For  example, we found that neither BLM nor Interior’s Minerals Management  Service (MMS) had consistently met their statutory requirements or  agency goals for oil and gas production verification inspections. Without  such verification, Interior cannot provide reasonable assurance that the  public is collecting its share of revenue from oil and gas development on  federal lands and waters. As a result of this work, we identified  19 recommendations for specific improvements to oversight of production  verification activities, with which Interior generally agreed.
Additionally, we reported in October 2010 that Interior’s data likely  underestimated the amount of natural gas produced on federal leases that  is released directly to the atmosphere (vented) or is burned (flared). This  vented and flared gas contributes to greenhouse gases and represents lost  royalties. We recommended that Interior improve its data and address  limitations in its regulations and guidance to reduce this lost gas. Interior  generally agreed and is taking initial steps to implement these  recommendations. Furthermore, we reported in July 2009 on numerous  problems with Interior’s efforts to collect data on oil and gas produced on  federal lands, including missing data, errors in company-reported data on  oil and gas production, and sales data that did not reflect prevailing  market prices for oil and gas. As a result of Interior’s lack of consistent  and reliable data on the production and sale of oil and gas from federal  lands, Interior could not provide reasonable assurance that it was  assessing and collecting the appropriate amount of royalties on this  production. We made a number of recommendations to Interior to  improve controls on the accuracy and reliability of royalty data. Interior  generally agreed with our recommendations and is working to implement  many of them, but these efforts are not complete, and it is uncertain at this  time if the efforts will fully address our concerns.
section_title: Human Capital Challenges Remain Pressing
paragraphs: We have reported that BLM and MMS have encountered persistent  problems in hiring, training, and retaining sufficient staff to meet its  oversight and management responsibilities for oil and gas operations on  federal lands and waters. For example, in March 2010, we found that BLM  and MMS experienced high turnover rates in key oil and gas inspection  and engineering positions responsible for production verification  activities. As a result, Interior faces challenges meeting its  responsibilities to oversee oil and gas development on federal leases,  potentially placing both the environment and royalties at risk. We made a  number of recommendations to address these issues. While Interior’s  reorganization of MMS includes plans to hire additional staff with  expertise in oil and gas inspections and engineering, these plans have not  been fully implemented and it remains unclear whether Interior will be  fully successful in hiring, training, and retaining these staff. Moreover, the  human capital issues we identified with BLM’s management of onshore oil  and gas continue, and these issues have not yet been addressed in  Interior’s reorganization plans.
section_title: Reorganization of Oil and Gas Functions Poses New Challenges
paragraphs: Historically, BLM managed onshore federal oil and gas activities while  MMS managed offshore activities and collected royalties for all leases. In  May 2010, the Secretary of the Interior announced plans to reorganize  MMS—its bureau responsible for overseeing offshore oil and gas activities  and collecting royalties—into three separate bureaus. The Secretary stated  that dividing MMS’s responsibilities among three separate bureaus will  help ensure that each of the three newly established bureaus have a  distinct and independent mission. Interior recently began implementing  this restructuring effort; transferring offshore oversight responsibilities to  the newly created Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and  Enforcement (BOEMRE) and revenue collection to a new Office of  Natural Resources Revenue. Interior plans to continue restructuring  BOEMRE to establish two separate bureaus—the Bureau of Ocean and  Energy Management, which will focus on leasing and permitting, and the  Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, which will focus on  inspection and enforcement functions. While this reorganization may  eventually lead to more effective operations, we have reported that  organizational transformations are not simple endeavors and require the  concentrated efforts of both leaders and employees to realize intended  synergies and accomplish new organizational goals. One key practice  that we have identified for effective organizational transformation is to  balance continued delivery of services with transformational activities. We  are concerned about Interior’s capacity to find the proper balance— particularly in today’s fiscally constrained environment—given its history  of management problems and challenges in the human capital area.  Specifically, we are concerned about Interior’s ability to undertake this  reorganization while providing reasonable assurance that billions of  dollars of revenues owed to the public are being properly assessed and  collected and that oversight of oil and gas exploration and production on  federal lands and waters maintains an appropriate balance between  efficiency and timeliness on one hand, and protection of the environment  and operational safety on the other.
section_title: Challenges of Balancing Oil and Gas Development with Environmental Stewardship
paragraphs: We have reported that Interior has experienced several challenges with  meeting its obligations to make federal oil and gas resources available for  leasing and development while simultaneously meeting its responsibilities  for managing public lands for other uses, including wildlife habitat,  recreation, and wilderness, among other uses. In July 2010, in our  examination of federal oil and gas lease sale decisions in the Mountain  West, we found that the extent to which BLM tracked and made available  to the public information related to protests filed during the leasing  process varied by state and was generally limited in scope. We also found  that stakeholders—including environmental and hunting interests, and  state and local governments protesting BLM lease offerings—wanted  additional time to participate in the leasing process and more information  from BLM about its leasing decisions. Moreover, we found that BLM had  been unable to manage an increased workload associated with public  protests and had missed deadlines for issuing leases. In May 2010, the  Secretary of the Interior announced several agencywide leasing reforms  that are to take place at BLM, some of which may address these concerns,  such as providing additional public review and comment opportunity  during the leasing process. In March 2010, we found that Interior faced  challenges in ensuring consistent implementation of environmental  requirements, both within and across BOEMRE’s regional offices, leaving  it vulnerable with regard to litigation and allegations of scientific  misconduct. We recommended that Interior develop comprehensive  environmental guidance materials for BOEMRE staff. Interior concurred  with this recommendation and is currently developing such guidance.  Finally, in September 2009, we reported that BLM’s use of categorical  exclusions under Section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was  frequently out of compliance with the law and BLM’s internal guidance.  As a result, we recommended that BLM take steps to improve the  implementation of Section 390 categorical exclusions through clarification  of its guidance, standardizing decision documents, and increasing  oversight.
section_title: Generating Other Revenue Collections and Enhancing Financial Assurances and Bonds
paragraphs: For many years we have identified better management of revenue  collection efforts as a major management challenge. As we stated in our  March 2009 testimony, additional revenues could be generated by  amending the General Mining Act of 1872 so that the federal government  could collect federal royalties on minerals extracted from U.S. mineral  rights. In addition, financial assurances and bonds from hardrock mining  and oil and gas operations could be enhanced to help ensure the  reclamation of federal land disturbed by these operations. Our recent  work has found that while BLM requires, among other things, that oil and  gas operators reclaim the land they disturb and post a bond to help ensure  they do so, not all operators perform the required reclamation, and the  minimum bond amounts required have not been increased in almost  50 years.
The General Mining Act of 1872 helped open the West by allowing  individuals to obtain exclusive rights to mine billions of dollars worth of  hardrock minerals from federal lands without having to pay a federal  royalty. In July 2008, we reported that the 12 western states, including  Alaska, assess multiple types of royalties on mining operations. States  may use similar names for the royalties they assess, but these can vary  widely in their forms and rates. Unlike the federal government, these  states charge royalties that allow them to share in the proceeds from  hardrock minerals extracted from state-owned lands, as well as levy taxes  that function like royalties, on private, state, and federal lands.
Under BLM regulations, hardrock mining operators who extract gold,  silver, copper, and other mineral deposits from land belonging to the  United States are required to provide financial assurances, before they  begin exploration or mining, to guarantee that the costs to reclaim land  disturbed by their operations are paid. When operators with insufficient  financial assurances fail to reclaim BLM land disturbed by hardrock  mining operations, BLM is left with public land that poses risks to the  environment and public health and safety, and requires millions of federal  dollars to reclaim. In March 2008, we found that the financial assurances  required by BLM were not adequate to fully cover estimated reclamation  costs. According to BLM, mine operators had provided financial  assurances valued at approximately $982 million to guarantee reclamation  costs for 1,463 hardrock operations on BLM land. BLM also estimated that  52 mining operations had financial assurances that amounted to about  $28 million less than needed to fully cover estimated reclamation costs.  We found, however, that because of a BLM miscalculation, the financial  assurances for these 52 operations were in fact about $61 million less than  needed to fully cover estimated reclamation costs. In addition, we have  also reported on the importance of financial assurances in the reclamation  of mountaintop mining operations.
Similarly for oil and gas development, we reported in January 2010 that  while BLM requires oil and gas operators to reclaim the land they disturb  and post a bond to help ensure they do so, not all operators perform  reclamation. If the bond is not sufficient to cover well plugging and  surface reclamation and there are no responsible or liable parties, the well  is considered “orphaned,” and BLM uses federal dollars to fund  reclamation. For fiscal years 1988 through 2009, BLM spent about  $3.8 million to reclaim 295 orphaned wells, and BLM has identified another  144 wells yet to be reclaimed. According to our analysis of BLM data, as of  December 2008, oil and gas operators had provided 3,879 bonds, valued at  $162 million, to ensure compliance with lease terms and conditions for  88,357 wells. The minimum bond amount for individual leases was set in  1960, and minimum amounts for statewide or nationwide bonds was  established in 1951; none of these bond amounts has been updated or  adjusted for inflation. We also found that 12 western states generally  required higher bond amounts than the minimum amounts established by  BLM regulations for individual and statewide oil and gas leases.
section_title: Improving Information Security
paragraphs: With an information technology budget of nearly $1 billion in fiscal year  2010, Interior relies on computerized information systems to carry out its  financial and mission-related operations. Effective information security  controls are required to ensure that financial and sensitive information is  adequately protected from inadvertent or deliberate misuse, fraudulent  use, and improper disclosure, modification, or destruction. Ineffective  controls can also impair the accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of  information used by management. The need for effective information  security is further underscored by the evolving and growing cyber threats  to federal systems and the dramatic increase in the number of security  incidents reported by federal agencies.
Interior has been challenged to effectively protect its computer systems  and networks. Our recent work, as well as our analysis of agency and  Office of Inspector General reports, show that the department has not  consistently implemented effective controls to prevent, limit, and detect  unauthorized access to its systems or manage the configuration of  network devices to prevent unauthorized access and ensure system  integrity. For example, we have reported on the need for federal agencies,  including Interior, to improve implementation of information security  controls such as those for configuring desktop computers and wireless  communication devices. We recommended that Interior, among other  things, complete implementation of the agency’s baseline security  configuration for desktop computers using Window XP or Vista operating  systems, and ensure its components document deviations to the baseline  configuration and deploy a National Institute of Standards and Technology  (NIST)-validated tool to monitor compliance with the configuration. The  department agreed with our recommendations and indicated that it has  initiated actions to implement them.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes our prepared statement. We would be  pleased to answer any questions that you or other Members of the  Subcommittee may have at this time.
section_title: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: For further information about this testimony, please contact Anu K. Mittal  or Frank Rusco at (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov and ruscof@gao.gov,  respectively. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and  Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. Individuals  making key contributions to this testimony include Jeffery D. Malcolm,  Assistant Director, and Janice Ceperich. Also contributing to this  testimony were Ashley Alley, Elizabeth Beardsley, Andrea Wamstad  Brown, Larry Crosland, Jonathan Dent, Heather E. Dowey, Glenn Fischer,  Emil Friberg, Steve Gaty, David Gootnick, Alyssa Hundrup, Richard P.  Johnson, Marissa Jones, Carol Kolarik, Jon Ludwigson, Robert Marek,  Jeanette Soares, Kiki Theodoropolous, Barbara Timmerman, Charles  Vrabel, Gregory C. Wilshusen, Jayne Wilson, and Arvin Wu.
section_title: Related GAO Products
subsections: section_title: High-Risk Series
paragraphs: High-Risk Series: An Update. GAO-11-278. Washington, D.C.: February  2011.
section_title: Interior Management Challenges
paragraphs: Department of the Interior: Major Management Challenges.  GAO-09-425T. Washington, D.C.: March 3, 2009.
section_title: Resource Protection
subsections: section_title: Wildland Fires
paragraphs: Wildland Fire Management: Federal Agencies Have Taken Important  Steps Forward, but Additional, Strategic Action Is Needed to Capitalize  on Those Steps. GAO-09-877. Washington, D.C.: September 9, 2009.
Wildland Fire Management: Interagency Budget Tool Needs Further  Development to Fully Meet Key Objectives. GAO-09-68. Washington, D.C.:  November 24, 2008.
Wildland Fire Management: Federal Agencies Lack Key Long- and Short-  Term Management Strategies for Using Program Funds Effectively.  GAO-08-433T. Washington, D.C.: February 12, 2008.
Wildland Fire Management: Better Information and a Systematic  Process Could Improve Agencies’ Approach to Allocating Fuel Reduction  Funds and Selecting Projects. GAO-07-1168. Washington, D.C.: September  28, 2007.
Wildland Fire Management: Lack of Clear Goals or a Strategy Hinders  Federal Agencies’ Efforts to Contain the Costs of Fighting Fires.  GAO-07-655. Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2007.
Wildland Fire Rehabilitation and Restoration: Forest Service and BLM  Could Benefit From Improved Information on Status of Needed Work.  GAO-06-670. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2006.
Wildland Fire Suppression: Lack of Clear Guidance Raises Concerns  about Cost Sharing between Federal and Nonfederal Entities.  GAO-06-570. Washington, D.C.: May 30, 2006.
Wildland Fire Management: Update on Federal Agency Efforts to Develop  a Cohesive Wildland Fire Strategy. GAO-06-671R. Washington, D.C.:   May 1, 2006.
section_title: Other Resource Protection Products
paragraphs: Federal Lands: Adopting a Formal, Risk-Based Approach Could Help  Land Management Agencies Better Manage Their Law Enforcement  Resources. GAO-11-144. Washington, D.C.: December 17, 2010.
Border Security: Additional Actions Needed to Better Ensure a  Coordinated Federal Response to Illegal Activity on Federal Lands.  GAO-11-177. Washington, D.C.: November 18, 2010.
Energy-Water Nexus: A Better and Coordinated Understanding of Water  Resources Could Help Mitigate the Impacts of Potential Oil Shale  Development. GAO-11-35. Washington, D.C.: October 29, 2010.
Southwest Border: More Timely Border Patrol Access and Training  Could Improve Security Operations and Natural Resource Protection on  Federal Lands. GAO-11-38. Washington, D.C.: October 19, 2010.
Helium Program: Key Developments Since the Early 1990s and Future  Considerations. GAO-10-700T. Washington, D.C.: May 13, 2010.
Surface Coal Mining: Financial Assurances for, and Long-Term  Oversight of, Mines with Valley Fills in Four Appalachian States.  GAO-10-206. Washington, D.C.: January 14, 2010.
Surface Coal Mining: Characteristics of Mining in Mountainous Areas  of Kentucky and West Virginia. GAO-10-21. Washington, D.C.: December  9, 2009.
Energy-Water Nexus: Improvements to Federal Water Use Data Would  Increase Understanding of Trends in Power Plant Water Use. GAO-10-23.  Washington, D.C.: October 16, 2009.
Climate Change Adaptation: Strategic Federal Planning Could Help  Government Officials Make More Informed Decisions. GAO-10-113.  Washington, D.C.: October 7, 2009.
Air Pollution: Air Quality, Visibility, and the Potential Impacts of Coal- Fired Power Plants on Great Basin National Park, Nevada.  GAO-09-788R. Washington, D.C.: July 27, 2009.
Federal Lands: Enhanced Planning Could Assist Agencies in Managing  Increased Use of Off-Highway Vehicles. GAO-09-509. Washington, D.C.:  June 30, 2009.
Alaska Native Villages: Limited Progress Has Been Made on Relocating  Villages Threatened by Flooding and Erosion. GAO-09-551. Washington,  D.C.: June 3, 2009.
Endangered Species Act: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Has  Incomplete Information about Effects on Listed Species from Section 7  Consultations. GAO-09-550. Washington, D.C.: May 21, 2009.
Federal Land Management: Additional Documentation of Agency  Experiences with Good Neighbor Authority Could Enhance Its Future  Use. GAO-09-277. Washington, D.C.: February 25, 2009.
Endangered Species Act: Many GAO Recommendations Have Been  Implemented, but Some Issues Remain Unresolved. GAO-09-225R.  Washington, D.C.: December 19, 2008.
Federal Land Management: Use of Stewardship Contracting Is  Increasing, but Agencies Could Benefit from Better Data and  Contracting Strategies. GAO-09-23. Washington, D.C.: November 13, 2008.
Bureau of Land Management: Effective Long-Term Options Needed to  Manage Unadoptable Wild Horses. GAO-09-77. Washington, D.C.:  October 9, 2008.
Wildlife Refuges: Changes in Funding, Staffing, and Other Factors  Create Concerns about Future Sustainability. GAO-08-797. Washington,  D.C.: September 22, 2008.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Endangered Species Act Decision  Making. GAO-08-688T. Washington, D.C.: May 21, 2008.
Yellowstone Bison: Interagency Plan and Agencies’ Management Need  Improvement to Better Address Bison-Cattle Brucellosis Controversy.  GAO-08-291. Washington, D.C.: March 7, 2008.
Natural Resource Management: Opportunities Exist to Enhance Federal  Participation in Collaborative Efforts to Reduce Conflicts and Improve  Natural Resource Conditions. GAO-08-262. Washington, D.C.: February  12, 2008.
Climate Change: Agencies Should Develop Guidance for Addressing the  Effects on Federal Land and Water Resources. GAO-07-863. Washington,  D.C.: August 7, 2007.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Opportunities Remain to Improve  Oversight and Management of Oil and Gas Activities on National  Wildlife Refuges. GAO-07-829R. Washington, DC: June 29, 2007.
National Parks Air Tour Management Act: More Flexibility and Better  Enforcement Needed. GAO-06-263. Washington, D.C.: January 27, 2006.
section_title: Indian and Insular Area Programs
subsections: section_title: Indian Issues
paragraphs: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: After Almost  20 Years, Key Federal Agencies Still Have Not Fully Complied with the  Act. GAO-10-768. Washington, D.C.: July 28, 2010.
Alaska Native Villages: Limited Progress Has Been Made on Relocating  Villages Threatened by Flooding and Erosion. GAO-09-551. Washington,  D.C.: June 3, 2009.
Indian Issues: BLM’s Program for Issuing Individual Indian Allotments  on Public Lands Is No Longer Viable. GAO-07-23R. Washington, D.C.:  October 20, 2006.
Indian Issues: BIA’s Efforts to Impose Time Frames and Collect Better  Data Should Improve the Processing of Land in Trust Applications.  GAO-06-781. Washington, D.C.: July 28, 2006.
Indian Irrigation: Numerous Issues Need to Be Addressed to Improve  Project Management and Financial Sustainability. GAO-06-314.  Washington, D.C.: February 24, 2006.
section_title: Insular Areas
paragraphs: American Samoa: Performing a Risk Assessment Would Better Inform  U.S. Agencies of the Risks Related to Acceptance of Certificates of  Identity. GAO-10-638. Washington, D.C.: June 11, 2010.
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands: DHS Should Conclude  Negotiations and Finalize Regulations to Implement Federal  Immigration Law. GAO-10-553. Washington, D.C.: May 7, 2010.
American Samoa and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands:  Wages, Employment, Employer Actions, Earnings, and Worker Views  Since Minimum Wage Increases Began. GAO-10-333. Washington, D.C.:  April 8, 2010.
U.S. Insular Areas: Opportunities Exist to Improve Interior’s Grant  Oversight and Reduce the Potential for Mismanagement. GAO-10-347.  Washington, D.C.: March 16, 2010.
CNMI Immigration and Border Control Databases. GAO-10-345R.  Washington, D.C.: February 16, 2010.
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands: Coordinated Federal  Decisions and Additional Data Are Needed to Manage Potential  Economic Impact of Applying U.S. Immigration Law. GAO-09-426T.  Washington, D.C.: May 19, 2009.
High-Level Leadership Needed to Help Guam Address Challenges Caused  by DOD-Related Growth. GAO-09-500R. Washington, D.C.: April 9, 2009.
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands: Managing Potential  Economic Impact of Applying U.S. Immigration Law Requires  Coordinated Federal Decisions and Additional Data. GAO-08-791.  Washington, D.C.: August 4, 2008.
Compact of Free Association: Palau’s Use of and Accountability for U.S.  Assistance and Prospects for Economic Self-Sufficiency. GAO-08-732.  Washington, D.C.: June 10, 2008.
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands: Pending Legislation  Would Apply U.S. Immigration Law to the CNMI with a Transition  Period. GAO-08-466. Washington, D.C.: March 28, 2008.
Compacts of Free Association: Trust Funds for Micronesia and the  Marshall Islands May Not Provide Sustainable Income. GAO-07-513.  Washington, D.C.: June 15, 2007.
Compacts of Free Association: Micronesia and the Marshall Islands Face  Challenges in Planning for Sustainability, Measuring Progress, and  Ensuring Accountability. GAO-07-163. Washington, D.C.: December 15,  2006.
U.S. Insular Areas: Economic, Fiscal, and Financial Accountability  Challenges. GAO-07-119. Washington, D.C.: December 12, 2006.
section_title: Federal Land Acquisition and Exchanges
paragraphs: Bureau of Land Management and General Services Administration— Selected Land Transactions. B-318274. Washington, D.C.: December 23,  2010.
Federal Land Management: Challenges to Implementing the Federal  Land Transaction Facilitation Act. GAO-10-259T. Washington, D.C.:  November 17, 2009.
Federal Land Management: BLM and the Forest Service Have Improved  Oversight of the Land Exchange Process, but Additional Actions Are  Needed. GAO-09-611. Washington, D.C.: June 12, 2009.
Federal Land Management: Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act  Restrictions and Management Weaknesses Limit Future Sales and  Acquisitions. GAO-08-196. Washington, D.C.: February 5, 2008.
Interior’s Land Appraisal Services: Actions Needed to Improve  Compliance with Appraisal Standards, Increase Efficiency, and  Broaden Oversight. GAO-06-1050. Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2006.
section_title: Deferred Maintenance Backlog
paragraphs: We have not issued any new reports on the Department of the Interior’s  deferred maintenance management challenge since our last testimony on  the department’s management challenges in March 2009.
section_title: Oil and Gas Management
paragraphs: Federal Oil and Gas Leases: Opportunities Exist to Capture Vented and  Flared Natural Gas, Which Would Increase Royalty Payments and  Reduce Greenhouse Gases. GAO-11-34. Washington, D.C.: October 29,  2010.
Onshore Oil and Gas: BLM’s Management of Public Protests to Its Lease  Sales Needs Improvement. GAO-10-670. Washington, D.C.: July 30, 2010.
Oil and Gas Management: Past Work Offers Insights to Consider in  Restructuring Interior’s Oversight. GAO-10-888T. Washington, D.C.:  July 22, 2010.
Oil and Gas Management: Key Elements to Consider for Providing  Assurance of Effective Independent Oversight. GAO-10-852T. Washington,  D.C.: June 17, 2010.
Workforce Planning: Interior, EPA, and the Forest Service Should  Strengthen Linkages to Their Strategic Plans and Improve Evaluation.  GAO-10-413. Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2010.
Oil and Gas Management: Interior’s Oil and Gas Production  Verification Efforts Do Not Provide Reasonable Assurance of Accurate  Measurement of Production Volumes. GAO-10-313. Washington, D.C.:  March 15, 2010.
Offshore Oil and Gas Development: Additional Guidance Would Help  Strengthen the Minerals Management Service’s Assessment of  Environmental Impacts in the North Aleutian Basin. GAO-10-276.  Washington, D.C.: March 8, 2010.
Oil and Gas Bonds: Bonding Requirements and BLM Expenditures to  Reclaim Orphaned Wells. GAO-10-245. Washington, D.C.: January 27, 2010.
Energy Policy Act of 2005: Greater Clarity Needed to Address Concerns  with Categorical Exclusions for Oil and Gas Development under Section  390 of the Act. GAO-09-872. Washington, D.C.: September 16, 2009.
Mineral Revenues: MMS Could Do More to Improve the Accuracy of Key  Data Used to Collect and Verify Oil and Gas Royalties. GAO-09-549.  Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2009.
Oil and Gas Leasing: Interior Could Do More to Encourage Diligent  Development. GAO-09-74. Washington, D.C.: October 3, 2008.
Mineral Revenues: Data Management Problems and Reliance on Self- Reported Data for Compliance Efforts Put MMS Royalty Collections at  Risk. GAO-08-893R. Washington, D.C.: September 12, 2008.
Oil and Gas Royalties: The Federal System for Collecting Oil and Gas  Revenues Needs Comprehensive Reassessment. GAO-08-691. Washington,  D.C.: September 3, 2008.
Oil and Gas Royalties: Litigation over Royalty Relief Could Cost the  Federal Government Billions of Dollars. GAO-08-792R. Washington, D.C.:  June 5, 2008.
Oil and Gas Royalties: A Comparison of the Share of Revenue Received  from Oil and Gas Production by the Federal Government and Other  Resource Owners. GAO-07-676R. Washington, D.C.: May 1, 2007.
Oil and Gas Royalties: Royalty Relief Will Cost the Government Billions  of Dollars but Uncertainty Over Future Energy Prices and Production  Levels Make Precise Estimates Impossible at this Time. GAO-07-590R.  Washington, D.C.: April 12, 2007.
Oil and Gas Development: Increased Permitting Activity Has Lessened  BLM’s Ability to Meet Its Environmental Protection Responsibilities.  GAO-05-418. Washington, D.C.: June 17, 2005.
section_title: Generating Other Revenue Collections and Enhancing Financial Assurances and Bonds
paragraphs: Oil and Gas Bonds: Bonding Requirements and BLM Expenditures to  Reclaim Orphaned Wells. GAO-10-245. Washington, D.C.: January 27, 2010.
Surface Coal Mining: Financial Assurances for, and Long-Term  Oversight of, Mines with Valley Fills in Four Appalachian States.  GAO-10-206. Washington, D.C.: January 14, 2010.
Hardrock Mining: Information on State Royalties and Trends in  Mineral Imports and Exports. GAO-08-849R. Washington, D.C.: July 21,  2008.
Hardrock Mining: Information on Abandoned Mines and Value and  Coverage of Financial Assurances on BLM Land. GAO-08-574T.  Washington, D.C.: March 12, 2008.
Recreation Fees: Agencies Can Better Implement the Federal Lands  Recreation Enhancement Act and Account for Fee Revenues.  GAO-06-1016. Washington, D.C.: September 22, 2006.
section_title: Information Security
paragraphs: Information Security: Federal Agencies Have Taken Steps to Secure  Wireless Networks, but Further Actions Can Mitigate Risk. GAO-11-43.  Washington, D.C.: November 30, 2010.
Cybersecurity: Continued Attention Is Needed to Protect Federal  Information Systems from Evolving Threats. GAO-10-834T. Washington,  D.C.: June 16, 2010.
Information Security: Agencies Need to Implement Federal Desktop Core  Configuration Requirements. GAO-10-202. Washington, D.C.: March 12,  2010.
Information Security: Agencies Continue to Report Progress, but Need to  Mitigate Persistent Weaknesses. GAO-09-546. Washington, D.C.: July 17,  2009.
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.