This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-424T 
entitled 'Department Of The Interior: Major Management Challenges' 
which was released on March 1, 2011. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. 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. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Testimony: 

Before the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related 
Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives: 

For Release on Delivery: 
Expected at 9:30 a.m. EST:
Tuesday, March 1, 2011: 

Department Of The Interior: 

Major Management Challenges: 

Statement of Anu K. Mittal, Director: 
Natural Resources and Environment: 

Frank Rusco, Director: 
Natural Resources and Environment: 

GAO-11-424T: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-11-424T, a testimony statement before the 
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee 
on Appropriations, House of Representatives. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

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. 

What GAO Found: 

As GAO’s previous work has shown, Interior faces major management 
challenges in the following seven areas: 

* 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. 

* 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. 

* 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. 

* 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. 

* 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. 

* 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. 

* 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. 

What GAO Recommends: 

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. 

View GAO-11-424T or key components. For more information, contact Anu 
K.Mittal or Frank Rusco at (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov and 
ruscof@gao.gov, respectively. 

[End of section] 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

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.[Footnote 
1] 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. 

Strengthening Resource Protection: 

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. 

Wildland Fire Management Challenges Persist: 

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.[Footnote 2] In 2009 
Congress echoed our call for a cohesive strategy in the Federal Land 
Assistance, Management, and Enhancement Act of 2009,[Footnote 3] 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.[Footnote 4] 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. 
[Footnote 5] 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).[Footnote 6] 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. 

Adapting to the Effects of Climate Change on Public Lands: 

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.[Footnote 
7] 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.[Footnote 8] 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. 
[Footnote 9] 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.[Footnote 10] 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. 

Protecting and Securing Federal Lands: 

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. 
[Footnote 11] 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.[Footnote 12] 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.[Footnote 13] 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. 

Strengthening the Accountability of Indian and Insular Area Programs: 

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. 

Challenges Continue for BIA's Processing of Land in Trust Applications: 

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.[Footnote 14] 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.[Footnote 
15] 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.[Footnote 16] 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.[Footnote 
17] 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. 
[Footnote 18] 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.[Footnote 19] 

Improve Effectiveness and Accountability for Insular Area Programs: 

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.[Footnote 20] 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.[Footnote 21] 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. 
[Footnote 22] 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.[Footnote 23] 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.[Footnote 24] 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.[Footnote 25] 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. 
[Footnote 26] 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.[Footnote 27] Employment in American Samoa and the 
CNMI has declined for multiple reasons. Studies funded by Interior 
have projected major additional contraction of both economies. 
[Footnote 28] 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. 

Improving Federal Land Acquisition and Exchanges: 

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. 
[Footnote 29] 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.[Footnote 30] 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.[Footnote 31] 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.[Footnote 32] 
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).[Footnote 33] 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.[Footnote 34] 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,[Footnote 35] 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.[Footnote 36] 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. 

Reducing Interior's Deferred Maintenance Backlog: 

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).[Footnote 37] 

Table 1: Department of the Interior's Estimate of Deferred Maintenance 
for Fiscal Year 2010: 

Type of structure: Roads, bridges, and trails; 
Estimated range of deferred maintenance: 
Low estimate: $6.53 billion; 
High estimate: $9.55 billion. 

Type of structure: Irrigation, dams, and other water structures; 
Estimated range of deferred maintenance: 
Low estimate: $1.95 billion; 
High estimate: $2.93 billion. 

Type of structure: Buildings (e.g., administration, education, 
housing, and historic buildings); 
Estimated range of deferred maintenance: 
Low estimate: $2.96 billion; 
High estimate: $4.34 billion. 

Type of structure: Other structures (e.g., recreation sites and fish 
hatcheries); 
Estimated range of deferred maintenance: 
Low estimate: $2.09 billion; 
High estimate: $3.06 billion. 

Type of structure: Total; 
Estimated range of deferred maintenance: 
Low estimate: $13.52 billion; 
High estimate: $19.87 billion. 

Source: Department of the Interior data. 

Note: Total may not add due to rounding. 

[End of table] 

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.[Footnote 38] 

Management of Federal Oil and Gas Resources: 

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. 
[Footnote 39] 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. 

Concerns Over Revenue Collection: 

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.[Footnote 40] 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.[Footnote 41] 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).[Footnote 42] 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.[Footnote 43] 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. 

Human Capital Challenges Remain Pressing: 

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.[Footnote 44] 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. 

Reorganization of Oil and Gas Functions Poses New Challenges: 

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.[Footnote 45] 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. 

Challenges of Balancing Oil and Gas Development with Environmental 
Stewardship: 

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,[Footnote 46] 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.[Footnote 47] 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.[Footnote 48] 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. 

Generating Other Revenue Collections and Enhancing Financial 
Assurances and Bonds: 

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.[Footnote 49] 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.[Footnote 50] 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.[Footnote 51] 

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.[Footnote 52] 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. 

Improving Information Security: 

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,[Footnote 53] 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. 
[Footnote 54] 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. 

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

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. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

High-Risk Series: 

High-Risk Series: An Update. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-278]. Washington, D.C.: February 
2011. 

Interior Management Challenges: 

Department of the Interior: Major Management Challenges. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-425T]. Washington, D.C.: March 3, 
2009. 

Resource Protection: 

Wildland Fires: 

Wildland Fire Management: Federal Agencies Have Taken Important Steps 
Forward, but Additional, Strategic Action Is Needed to Capitalize on 
Those Steps. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-877]. 
Washington, D.C.: September 9, 2009. 

Wildland Fire Management: Interagency Budget Tool Needs Further 
Development to Fully Meet Key Objectives. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-570]. Washington, D.C.: 
May 30, 2006. 

Wildland Fire Management: Update on Federal Agency Efforts to Develop 
a Cohesive Wildland Fire Strategy. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-671R]. Washington, D.C.: May 1, 
2006. 

Other Resource Protection Products: 

Federal Lands: Adopting a Formal, Risk-Based Approach Could Help Land 
Management Agencies Better Manage Their Law Enforcement Resources. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-38]. Washington, 
D.C.: October 19, 2010. 

Helium Program: Key Developments Since the Early 1990s and Future 
Considerations. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-206]. Washington, D.C.: January 14, 
2010. 

Surface Coal Mining: Characteristics of Mining in Mountainous Areas of 
Kentucky and West Virginia. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-23]. Washington, D.C.: October 16, 
2009. 

Climate Change Adaptation: Strategic Federal Planning Could Help 
Government Officials Make More Informed Decisions. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-788R]. Washington, 
D.C.: July 27, 2009. 

Federal Lands: Enhanced Planning Could Assist Agencies in Managing 
Increased Use of Off-Highway Vehicles. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-277]. Washington, D.C.: 
February 25, 2009. 

Endangered Species Act: Many GAO Recommendations Have Been 
Implemented, but Some Issues Remain Unresolved. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-23]. 
Washington, D.C.: November 13, 2008. 

Bureau of Land Management: Effective Long-Term Options Needed to 
Manage Unadoptable Wild Horses. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-77]. Washington, D.C.: October 9, 
2008. 

Wildlife Refuges: Changes in Funding, Staffing, and Other Factors 
Create Concerns about Future Sustainability. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-797]. Washington, D.C.: September 
22, 2008. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Endangered Species Act Decision 
Making. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-
829R]. Washington, DC: June 29, 2007. 

National Parks Air Tour Management Act: More Flexibility and Better 
Enforcement Needed. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-263]. Washington, D.C.: January 27, 
2006. 

Indian and Insular Area Programs: 

Indian Issues: 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: After Almost 
20 Years, Key Federal Agencies Still Have Not Fully Complied with the 
Act. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-781]. Washington, D.C.: 
July 28, 2006. 

Indian Irrigation: Numerous Issues Need to Be Addressed to Improve 
Project Management and Financial Sustainability. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-314]. Washington, D.C.: February 
24, 2006. 

Insular Areas: 

American Samoa: Performing a Risk Assessment Would Better Inform U.S. 
Agencies of the Risks Related to Acceptance of Certificates of 
Identity. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-347]. Washington, D.C.: March 16, 
2010. 

CNMI Immigration and Border Control Databases. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-426T]. Washington, D.C.: May 19, 
2009. 

High-Level Leadership Needed to Help Guam Address Challenges Caused by 
DOD-Related Growth. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-163]. Washington, D.C.: December 
15, 2006. 

U.S. Insular Areas: Economic, Fiscal, and Financial Accountability 
Challenges. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-119]. 
Washington, D.C.: December 12, 2006. 

Federal Land Acquisition and Exchanges: 

Bureau of Land Management and General Services Administration--
Selected Land Transactions. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/B-318274]. Washington, D.C.: December 23, 
2010. 

Federal Land Management: Challenges to Implementing the Federal Land 
Transaction Facilitation Act. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-1050]. 
Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2006. 

Deferred Maintenance Backlog: 

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. 

Oil and Gas Management: 

Federal Oil and Gas Leases: Opportunities Exist to Capture Vented and 
Flared Natural Gas, Which Would Increase Royalty Payments and Reduce 
Greenhouse Gases. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-670]. Washington, D.C.: July 30, 
2010. 

Oil and Gas Management: Past Work Offers Insights to Consider in 
Restructuring Interior's Oversight. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-888T]. Washington, D.C.: July 22, 
2010. 

Oil and Gas Management: Key Elements to Consider for Providing 
Assurance of Effective Independent Oversight. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-276]. Washington, D.C.: March 8, 
2010. 

Oil and Gas Bonds: Bonding Requirements and BLM Expenditures to 
Reclaim Orphaned Wells. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-549]. Washington, D.C.: July 15, 
2009. 

Oil and Gas Leasing: Interior Could Do More to Encourage Diligent 
Development. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-418]. Washington, D.C.: 
June 17, 2005. 

Generating Other Revenue Collections and Enhancing Financial 
Assurances and Bonds: 

Oil and Gas Bonds: Bonding Requirements and BLM Expenditures to 
Reclaim Orphaned Wells. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-206]. Washington, D.C.: January 14, 
2010. 

Hardrock Mining: Information on State Royalties and Trends in Mineral 
Imports and Exports. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-1016]. Washington, D.C.: September 
22, 2006. 

Information Security: 

Information Security: Federal Agencies Have Taken Steps to Secure 
Wireless Networks, but Further Actions Can Mitigate Risk. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-43]. Washington, D.C.: November 30, 
2010. 

Cybersecurity: Continued Attention Is Needed to Protect Federal 
Information Systems from Evolving Threats. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-834T]. Washington, D.C.: June 16, 
2010. 

Information Security: Agencies Need to Implement Federal Desktop Core 
Configuration Requirements. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-202]. Washington, D.C.: March 12, 
2010. 

Information Security: Agencies Continue to Report Progress, but Need 
to Mitigate Persistent Weaknesses. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-546]. Washington, D.C.: July 17, 
2009. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] GAO, Department of the Interior: Major Management Challenges, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-425T]. (Washington, 
D.C.: Mar. 3, 2009). 

[2] For more information on the agencies' efforts to address these 
recommendations, see GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Federal Agencies 
Have Taken Important Steps Forward, but Additional, Strategic Action 
Is Needed to Capitalize on Those Steps, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-877] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9, 
2009). 

[3] Pub. L. No. 111-88, § 503, 123 Stat. 2971 (2009). 

[4] GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Lack of Clear Goals or a Strategy 
Hinders Federal Agencies' Efforts to Contain the Costs of Fighting 
Fires, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-655] 
(Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2007). 

[5] GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Better Information and a Systematic 
Process Could Improve Agencies' Approach to Allocating Fuel Reduction 
Funds and Selecting Projects, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1168] (Washington, D.C: Sept. 28, 
2007). 

[6] GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Interagency Budget Tool Needs 
Further Development to Fully Meet Key Objectives, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-68] (Washington, D.C: Nov. 24, 
2008). 

[7] GAO, Climate Change: Agencies Should Develop Guidance for 
Addressing the Effects on Federal Land and Water Resources, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-863] (Washington, D.C.: 
Aug. 7, 2007). 

[8] GAO, Alaska Native Villages: Limited Progress Has Been Made on 
Relocating Villages Threatened by Flooding and Erosion, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-551] (Washington, D.C.: June 3, 
2009). 

[9] GAO, Climate Change Adaptation: Strategic Federal Planning Could 
Help Government Officials Make More Informed Decisions, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-113] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 7, 
2009). 

[10] Secretarial Order No. 3289 (Sept. 14, 2009), as amended. The 
order, among other things, designated eight regional Climate Change 
Response Centers, now known as Climate Science Centers. Secretarial 
Order No. 3289, Amendment No. 1 (Feb. 22, 2010). According to 
Interior, these centers will synthesize existing climate change impact 
data and management strategies, help resource managers put them into 
action on the ground, and engage the public through education 
initiatives. Interior has also identified specific adaptation 
strategies and tools for natural resource managers. For example, 
Interior provided a number of adaptation-related policy options for 
land managers in reports produced for its Climate Change Task Force, a 
past effort that has since been expanded upon to reflect new 
priorities. 

[11] GAO, Federal Lands: Adopting a Formal, Risk-Based Approach Could 
Help Land Management Agencies Better Manage Their Law Enforcement 
Resources, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-144] 
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 17, 2010). 

[12] GAO, Border Security: Additional Actions Needed to Better Ensure 
a Coordinated Federal Response to Illegal Activity on Federal Lands, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-177] (Washington, D.C.: 
Nov. 18, 2010). 

[13] GAO, Southwest Border: More Timely Border Patrol Access and 
Training Could Improve Security Operations and Natural Resource 
Protection on Federal Lands, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-38] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 19, 
2010). 

[14] 25 C.F.R. pt. 151. 

[15] GAO, Indian Issues: BIA's Efforts to Impose Time Frames and 
Collect Better Data Should Improve the Processing of Land in Trust 
Applications, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-781] 
(Washington, D.C.: July 28, 2006). 

[16] Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1058 (2009). 

[17] Act of June 18, 1934 (Indian Reorganization Act), ch. 576, 48 
Stat. 984-988 (1934), codified as amended at 25 U.S.C. §§ 461-479. 

[18] For additional information on BIA's administrative process for 
granting federal recognition and a list of newly recognized tribes see 
GAO, Indian Issues: Improvements Needed in Tribal Recognition Process, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-49] (Washington, D.C.: 
Nov. 2, 2001). Also see enclosure II of GAO, Indian Issues: BLM's 
Program for Issuing Individual Allotments on Public Lands Is No Longer 
Viable, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-23R] 
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 20, 2006) and appendix II of GAO, Native 
American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: After Almost 20 
Years, Key Federal Agencies Still Have Not Fully Complied with the 
Act, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-768] (Washington, 
D.C.: July 28, 2010) for updated lists of new and restored tribes. The 
Shinnecock Indian Nation of New York, the newest federally recognized 
tribe, was recognized as of October 1, 2010. 75 Fed. Reg. 66124 (Oct. 
27, 2010). 

[19] Patchak v. Salazar, 646 F. Supp. 2d 72 (D.D.C. 2009), vacated by 
Patchak v. Salazar, No. 09-5324 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 21, 2011); Clark 
County v. Salazar, No. 11-00278 (D.C. Cir. filed Jan. 31, 2011). 

[20] GAO, U.S. Insular Areas: Opportunities Exist to Improve 
Interior's Grant Oversight and Reduce the Potential for Mismanagement, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-347] (Washington, D.C.: 
Mar. 16, 2010). 

[21] GAO, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands: Pending 
Legislation Would Apply U.S. Immigration Law to the CNMI with a 
Transition Period, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-466] 
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 28, 2008); GAO, Commonwealth of the Northern 
Mariana Islands: Managing Potential Economic Impact of Applying U.S. 
Immigration Law Requires Coordinated Federal Decisions and Additional 
Data, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-791] (Washington, 
D.C.: Aug. 4, 2008); GAO, 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, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-426T] (Washington, 
D.C.: May 19, 2009); GAO, CNMI Immigration and Border Control 
Databases, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-345R] 
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 16, 2010); and GAO, Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana Islands: DHS Should Conclude Negotiations and 
Finalize Regulations to Implement Federal Immigration Law, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-553] (Washington, D.C.: May 7, 
2010). 

[22] Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-229, 
Title VII, 122 Stat. 754, 853 (2008). The Secretary of Homeland 
Security elected to delay the transition period start date from June 
1, 2009, to November 28, 2009, as permitted by the law. U.S. 
immigration law was applied to the CNMI November 28, 2009, as 
scheduled; however, implementation of the CNMI transitional worker 
program was delayed following a federal court injunction just before 
the transition period start date that required the Department of 
Homeland Security to allow more time for public comment on the 
proposed program regulations. As of January 2011, the department had 
not yet issued final regulations for the transitional worker program. 

[23] In providing the technical assistance, the federal government 
should consult with the CNMI government, local businesses, regional 
banks, and other CNMI economy experts. 

[24] 75 Fed. Reg. 79264 (Dec. 20, 2010). 

[25] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-791]. Report on 
the factors that would affect the impact of the law's implementation 
on the CNMI economy, in particular the CNMI's (1) labor market, 
including foreign workers; (2) tourism sector; and (3) foreign 
investment. 

[26] U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq 
Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-28, § 8103, 
121 Stat. 188 (2007), as amended by Pub. L. No. 111-244, 124 Stat. 
2618 (2010), codified at 29 U.S.C. § 206 note. Under the law, any 
future changes to the minimum wage enacted under U.S. law for the 50 
states, District of Columbia, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and Puerto 
Rico also will apply to American Samoa and the CNMI. For changes 
enacted before American Samoa and the CNMI would have reached the 
current U.S. minimum wage, the minimum wages in the two areas would 
continue to increase in $0.50 increments until they reach the federal 
minimum wage, extending beyond the current time frames. After each 
area reaches the U.S. minimum wage, any additional increase in the 
U.S. minimum wage would apply to American Samoa and the CNMI on the 
same schedule as for the 50 U.S. states. In September 2010, the United 
States enacted a law delaying the scheduled minimum wage increases in 
both areas, providing for no increase in the CNMI in 2010, and no 
increase in American Samoa in 2010 or 2011. See Pub. L. No. 111-244, 
124 Stat. 2618 (2010). 

[27] GAO, American Samoa and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
Islands: Wages, Employment, Employer Actions, Earnings, and Worker 
Views Since Minimum Wage Increases Began, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-333] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 8, 
2010). Results regarding workers affected by the minimum wage 
increases are based on responses to our questionnaire of employers in 
each area with 50 or more employees. 

[28] Malcolm D. McPhee & Associates with Dick Conway and Lewis Wolman, 
American Samoa's Economic Future and the Cannery Industry, prepared 
for the American Samoa Department of Commerce under an OIA grant 
(February 2008); and Malcolm D. McPhee & Associates and Dick Conway, 
Economic Impact of Federal Laws on the Commonwealth of the Northern 
Mariana Islands, prepared for the CNMI Office of the Governor under an 
OIA grant (October 2008). 

[29] GAO, Federal Land Management: Challenges to Implementing the 
Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-259T] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 17, 
2009). 

[30] In 2008 we reported that from August 2007--7 years after FLTFA 
was enacted--through January 2008, the four land management agencies 
had 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. See GAO, Federal Land Management: 
Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act Restrictions and Management 
Weaknesses Limit Future Sales and Acquisitions, GAO-08-196 
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 5, 2008). 

[31] The Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010 extended 
FLTFA's authorization until July 25, 2011. Pub. L. No. 111-212, § 
3007(a) (2010). 

[32] The act provides that upon termination of the Federal Land 
Disposal Account--the account containing the program's funds--any 
remaining balance in the account shall become available for 
appropriation under Section 3 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
Act. 

[33] GAO, Federal Land Management: BLM and the Forest Service Have 
Improved Oversight of the Land Exchange Process, but Additional 
Actions Are Needed, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-611] (Washington, D.C.: June 12, 
2009). 

[34] BLM regulations define "assembled land exchange" to mean the 
consolidation of multiple parcels of federal and/or nonfederal land 
for purposes of one or more exchange transactions over a period of 
time. 43 C.F.R. § 2200.0-5(f). We refer to assembled exchanges that 
involve more than one closing transaction as "multiphase exchanges." 

[35] Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 
Instruction Memorandum No. 2010-122, Processing of Land Exchanges and 
Management of Value Imbalances in Land Exchanges (May 14, 2010). 

[36] GAO, Bureau of Land Management and General Services 
Administration--Selected Land Transactions, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/B-318274] (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 23, 
2010). We also examined selected land transactions that BLM, working 
under an agreement with the General Services Administration, carried 
out in the state of California. We concluded that although two of the 
transactions were indeed exchanges consistent with the provisions of 
the California Desert Protection Act, numerous other transactions were 
not exchanges but instead were purchases and sales of public land or 
surplus federal real property. As in the transactions in the state of 
Washington, these actions violated the Miscellaneous Receipts Statute 
and improperly augmented BLM's land acquisition appropriations. 

[37] Interior is not alone in facing daunting maintenance challenges. 
In fact, we identified the management of federal real property, 
including deferred maintenance issues, as a governmentwide high-risk 
area in 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009. For our 2011 update of the high- 
risk areas, we amended the federal real property area and it no longer 
includes managing the condition of facilities. While federal agencies 
still face a challenge of reducing their deferred maintenance in light 
of the federal deficit and long-term fiscal challenges facing the 
nation, we no longer consider it a governmentwide high-risk area. See 
GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-278] (Washington, D.C.: February 
2011). 

[38] Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115 (2009). Interior received nearly 
$3 billion under the act. The funds are being spent on, among other 
things, facilities and roads improvements and construction, according 
to Interior's Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2010. 

[39] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-278]. 

[40] GAO, Oil and Gas Royalties: The Federal System for Collecting Oil 
and Gas Revenues Needs Comprehensive Reassessment, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-691] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 3, 
2008). 

[41] GAO, Oil and Gas Management: Interior's Oil and Gas Production 
Verification Efforts Do Not Provide Reasonable Assurance of Accurate 
Measurement of Production Volumes, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-313] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15, 
2010). 

[42] GAO, Federal Oil and Gas Leases: Opportunities Exist to Capture 
Vented and Flared Natural Gas, Which Would Increase Royalty Payments 
and Reduce Greenhouse Gases, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-34] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 29, 
2010). 

[43] GAO, Mineral Revenues: MMS Could Do More to Improve the Accuracy 
of Key Data Used to Collect and Verify Oil and Gas Royalties, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-549] (Washington, D.C.: 
July 15, 2009). 

[44] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-313]. 

[45] GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist 
Mergers and Organizational Transformations, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-669] (Washington, D.C.: July 2, 
2003). 

[46] GAO, Onshore Oil and Gas: BLM's Management of Public Protests to 
Its Lease Sales Needs Improvement, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-670] (Washington, D.C.: July 30, 
2010). 

[47] GAO, Offshore Oil and Gas Development: Additional Guidance Would 
Help Strengthen the Minerals Management Service's Assessment of 
Environmental Impacts in the North Aleutian Basin, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-276] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 8, 
2010). 

[48] GAO, 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, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-872] (Washington, D.C.: Sept.16, 
2009). 

[49] GAO, Hardrock Mining: Information on State Royalties and Trends 
in Mineral Imports and Exports, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-849R] (Washington, D.C.: July 21, 
2008). 

[50] GAO, Hardrock Mining: Information on Abandoned Mines and Value 
and Coverage of Financial Assurances on BLM Land, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-574T] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 12, 
2008). 

[51] GAO, Surface Coal Mining: Financial Assurances for, and Long-Term 
Oversight of, Mines with Valley Fills in Four Appalachian States, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-206] (Washington, D.C.: 
Jan. 14, 2010). 

[52] GAO, Oil and Gas Bonds: Bonding Requirements and BLM Expenditures 
to Reclaim Orphaned Wells, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-245] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 27, 
2010). 

[53] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-278]. 

[54] GAO, Information Security: Agencies Need to Implement Federal 
Desktop Core Configuration Requirements, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-202] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 12, 
2010). The federal desktop core configuration initiative (now known as 
the United States Government Configuration Baseline) established a set 
of common security configurations for Windows XP and Vista operating 
systems used by federal agencies that is intended to provide a 
baseline level of security, reduce risk from security threats and 
vulnerabilities, improve system performance, and ensure public 
confidence in the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of 
government information. GAO, Information Security: Federal Agencies 
Have Taken Steps to Secure Wireless Networks, but Further Actions Can 
Mitigate Risk, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-43] 
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 30, 2010). 

[End of section] 

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. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://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 [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: