FLTFA, commonly called the “Baca Act,” 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 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 time for the federal agency to secure necessary funding for the purchase or to comply with laws and regulations governing the acquisition. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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). 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.” 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. 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. Figure 2 illustrates these requirements using an example of $1 million in revenue. 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 allow BLM to use updated land use plans to identify areas suitable for 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 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.