Detailed Information on the
Bureau of Land Management - Realty and Ownership Management Assessment

Developed new measures and refined a few existing measures to improve the program??s focus on performance, and in particular, on outcomes.

Will finalize regulations to improve cost recovery within the realty program and allow for more timely response to public demand for use authorizations and other BLM actions. (Anticipated completion: March 2005)

Will work to implement recently-enacted legislative changes to the Alaska conveyance.

Measure: Percent of land conveyed to the State and Alaskan Native Corporations as required by statute.

Explanation:Measures the extent of BLM progress in meeting its statutory responsibilities to convey certain lands to the State of Alaska and Alaska Native Corporations as required under the Alaska Statehood Act and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (as amended by the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act). Targets will be established to assess both annual and long-term performance.

Measure: Percent of total acreage of land sales offerred by competitive or modified competitive means.

Explanation:Measures the extent to which BLM is using competitive processes in the sale of public lands. Competitive bid processes are generally viewed as providing the best return to the government (and by extension the taxpaying public).

Measure: Percent of survey projects of Federal and Indian Trust lands that are funded

Explanation:Measures BLM progress in achieving the survey goals identified in the agency's Three-year Plan.

Measure: Percent of cadastral surveys completed within 18 months of being funded.

Explanation:Measures the timeliness of the program in meeting the needs of cadastral survey customers.

Measure: Number and percent of pending cases of right-of-way permits and grant applications in backlog status.

Explanation:Measures BLM progress in eliminating its ROW backlog.

Measure: Average cost to process a minor category right-of-way permit or grant application. (Major types of rights-of-way reported separately.)

Explanation:Measures the cost efficiency with which BLM processes various types of ROWs (as defined as "minor" ROWs in 43 CFR 2800).

Measure: Average length of time required to process a minor category right-of-way permit or grant application. (Major types of rights-of-way reported separately.)

Explanation:Measures the timeliness with which BLM processes various types of ROWs (as defined as "minor" ROWs in 43 CFR 2800).

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The BLM administers 262 million acres of public lands mostly in western states and an additional 350 million acres of subsurface mineral estate on other federal, state, and private lands. BLM's Realty and Ownership program plays a significant role in managing these lands and consists of three major components. The first is land tenure adjustments, such as acquisition of fee title or interests in private lands (through purchase or exchange) and the disposal of fee title or interests in public lands (through sale, grant, or exchange). Substantial resources are devoted to conveyance of lands in Alaska to individuals, native corporations, and the State of Alaska. The second component provides various public and private entities with permission to use public lands for: 1) Right-of-Way (ROW) authorizations for pipelines, electric transmission lines, roads, communications sites, etc; and 2) use and development of public lands through easements, permits, leases, etc. Finally, the cadastral survey component provides land survey services on Federal and Indian lands, maintains the Public Land Survey System (PLSS), and provides leadership on cadastral data management to other Federal agencies pursuant to OMB Circular A-16.

Evidence: Primary laws and regulations: The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of October 21, 1976, as amended, (P.L. 94-579); Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.); Alaska State Grant Act (72 Stat 339-343); Title II of Public Law 106-248 (43 U.S.C. 2301-2306) the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (Baca Bill); 43 CFR parts 2200, 2300, 2520, 2530, 2540, 2560, 2620, 2640, 2650, 2710, 2720, and 2740, 2800, 2880, 2920; Mineral Leasing Act (MLA) of 1920 as amended (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.; Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act (P.L. 95-153); 43 U.S.C § 2. Duties concerning public lands; 25 U.S.C. § 176. Survey of reservations. Note: Lands transferred under the 1872 mining law are managed through a different program that will be evaluated at a later date.

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest or need?

Explanation: The Realty and Ownership Program performs basic, ongoing functions critical to BLM's role as a land manager. The program assists in promoting more effective resource management by disposing of lands needed for development or other public objectives and acquiring other lands for environmental or open space needs; patenting lands to States, Native corporations, and individual allotees in Alaska; authorizing ROWs on Federal lands, withdrawing Federal lands from mineral entry for various purposes, or transferring them to other Federal agencies for their use; and authorizing other leases and permits for terms ranging up to 3 years for permits and 20 years for leases; maintaining the PLSS; and upholding the Secretary of the Interior's fiduciary responsibilities in Indian country.

Evidence: Public Land Statistics 2002 and 2003, showing the lands patented for various purposes, the lands acquired to benefit public programs either through exchange, purchase, or donation and use authorizations (ROWs, withdrawals, permits); BLM Annual Work Plan for 2002 and 2003. BLM Energy plan, especially items 22-31. Inventory of cadastral survey needs for 2002.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: The Realty and Ownership program is not duplicative of any other Federal, state, local, or private program. FLPMA authorizes BLM to dispose of or acquire land, or interests in land; process ROWs, leases, and permits; and process withdrawal and revocation actions with Department of the Interior's (DOI) Assistant Secretary approval. No other agency has authority to authorize FLPMA uses for public lands. Under other laws, BLM has authority to dispose of lands for other purposes, including AK land disposal, for which no other entity has the legal ability to perform. Federal agencies within DOI and the Department of Agriculture often work under BLM's survey authority. BLM is responsible for approving cadastral surveys performed by other agencies. The Interagency Cadastral Coordination Council facilitates interagency communication and cooperation.

Evidence: FLPMA, and other authorities as identified in Question 1.1. 43 U.S.C § 2. Duties concerning public lands. 25 U.S.C. § 176. Survey of reservations. Interagency Cadastral Coordination Council Charter (ICCC). Interagency Agreement Number AG2000K039 Modification 09 Between BLM and BIA.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: There is no evidence of redundancy or flaws indicating that another mechanism would be more effective in meeting the goals of the program. However, the program is hindered by a lack of adequate cost recovery in some areas. Most of the activities performed through the Realty and Ownership program are demand-based, and there is a general expectation among public land users that BLM will respond to changes in demand in a timely manner. In some cases, such as ROW processing, this has not been the case, and a substantial backlog of permits has developed. One problem is the reliance of the program on appropriated funding, which must often be estimated well in advance of the actual need. BLM is working to partially address this problem by updating its cost recovery regulations, but these regulations have not yet been finalized. In addition, the Alaska conveyance portion of the program operates in a morass of complicated Federal statutes, regulations, and case law. The resolution of conflicting claims has been prolonged as statutes have been enacted, amended, and reinterpreted, often causing completed conveyances to be reopened or survey work to be redone.

Evidence: See laws and regulations identified above in sec 1.1. BLM manuals and handbooks include specific disposal and land acquisition methodologies. Task Force Report on the exchange process, and the Secretarial Order establishing a Departmental Appraisal Group. Regulations in 43 CFR parts 2800, and 2920. BLM Annual Work Plans for fiscal years beginning in 1991, manuals and handbooks identified in the 2800 and 2920 series.

Is the program effectively targeted, so that resources will reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: Alaska conveyance work represents a substantial and growing component of the Realty and Ownership program. The Alaska Conveyance procedures are such that only intended beneficiaries (allottees, Native Alaskan village and regional corporations, and the State of Alaska) receive land as mandated by statute. However, due to the complicated nature of the laws, regulations, and legal interpretations surrounding often-conflicting claims, the agency is challenged in effectively targeting its conveyance resources. These factors have repeatedly pushed back anticipated conveyance completion dates, and as a result, a significant portion of these funds are likely being wasted on time-consuming, inefficient processes.

Evidence: BLM Annual Work Plans for 2003 and 2004; See laws and regulations identified in 1.1 and at 43 CFR parts 2300, 2800 and 2920, SF Form 299 (see BLM website). Cost Management Review; CARS priority rating sheet (entitled "Prioritization of Cadastral Survey Requests BIA Definition Sheet"); sample list of surveys chosen to be completed in 2004. Alaska Land Transfer Program Sunset Plan (2001-2004), January 2001.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The BLM has developed several new performance measures and goals for the Realty and Ownership program to replace certain existing measures and complement others. While not perfect, these measures represent a substantial improvement in terms of a focus on outcomes, which in this program primarily relates to meeting customer demand. The agency will continue to work with OMB to refine and/or supplement these measures as appropriate.

Evidence: See attached list of measures.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: Most of the measures are new and targets have not yet been established. In addition, for the few existing measures, it is questionable whether the targets and timeframes are ambitious. DOI and OMB are working together to establish ambitious targets and timeframes for these measures.

Evidence: N/A.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: BLM has developed annual performance measures that tier directly to the new long-term performance measures for this program. As with the long-term measures, the annual measures are not perfect but represent a substantial improvement from the past. The agency will continue to work with OMB to refine and/or supplement these measures as appropriate.

Evidence: See attached list of measures.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: As with the long-term measures, most of the annual measures are new and targets have not yet been established. For the few existing measures, it is questionable whether the targets and timeframes are ambitious. DOI and OMB are working together to establish ambitious targets and timeframes for these measures.

Evidence: N/A.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: Work is completed through and with contractors and partners in performing program tasks, but these partners are often not held accountable for their contribution to the program's broader performance goals, in part because the program has lacked good performance measures. However, specific problems exist in some areas. Alaska conveyance work is one example where, as program partners, the State of Alaska and native corporations are often reluctant and/or slow to make their land selections as provided for in statute. This creates a substantial burden for BLM in completing conveyance work in a timely and efficient manner. Another challenge involves processing ROWs across several federal land management boundaries. Often other federal agencies have different priorities, making BLM's effort to process these ROWs more difficult and time consuming. BLM has taken steps to improve coordination and priority setting with other bureaus, but problems still remain.

Evidence: BLM Land Acquisition Handbook series, Land Exchange regulations (43 CFR part 2200), Data Sharing Agreement between the Forest Service, MMS, and BLM. NTIA Linear ROW report. President's National Energy Policy (NEP).

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Independent evaluations have been completed on an ad hoc basis for various components of the program, but no evaluations of sufficient scope and quality are completed on a regular basis for all parts of the program. Two recent external evaluations of components of the program have been completed recently. An assessment completed by the Appraisal Foundation in FY2002 recommended land exchange and appraisal program improvements, and BLM is in the process of implementing a number of changes based on the review. In FY2003, the Office of Trust Risk Management (an office within the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians) conducted a review of all BLM cadastral survey offices to examine how well these offices meet the Secretaries fiduciary responsibilities to manage Indian Trust assets on lands. Recommendations from the report are being implemented to improve the program. Although, BLM has established a series of regular internal program reviews, these reviews do not meet the test of independence and the scope and rigor of the analyses can vary substantially.

Evidence: Appraisal Foundation Report dated October 9, 2002. Fiscal Year 2003 Management Control Review Report, Cadastral Survey Services, BLM's New Mexico and Montana State Offices -- testing MCPA submitted by OST, and OST memorandum initiating the control review.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: In most cases, BLM can predict relatively well its marginal costs of achieving additional outputs in program subcomponent, but budget requests do not report the indirect costs (such as program overhead) of achieving these outputs. Also, because good performance measures have been lacking, budget requests have typically focused on reporting program outputs (such as the number of acres to be disposed of or acquired, the anticipated number of ROWs to be authorized, the number of leases and permits, etc.) without putting these outputs in a context that demonstrates the agency is moving toward achieving its long-term performance goals. BLM is working steadily to improve the link between program budgets and performance.

Evidence: FY2004 and FY2005 BLM Budget Justifications, project budget sheets. FY 2003 and FY2004 BLM Planning Target Allocation analysis.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: Working with OMB, the agency has developed a number of performance measures that improve the program's focus on outcomes. The agency is in in the process of establishing baseline data and targets for these measures. The agency has also been proactive in specific areas. For example, BLM has been working with other agencies to establish new ROW corridors and areas for production of renewable energy. BLM is working with the Western Utility Group in the development of potential corridor maps. BLM is coordinating with the Forest Service in the development of corridors through FS lands. This upfront planning should help improve future coordination in processing ROWs and should allow BLM to make better progress in achieving its program goals.

Evidence: See attached list of measures. Instruction Memorandum No. 2003-061 ' Right-of-Way (ROW) Corridors, ROW Use Areas, Land Use Planning.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: BLM tracks and collects data for the Realty and Ownership program through its Legacy Rehost 2000 (LR2000) and Management Information System (MIS) databases. LR 2000 tracks the number of authorizations by acreage for land disposals and acquisitions, and number of authorizations for ROW's, leases and permits, and lands withdrawn or revoked. MIS tracks cases (and acres beginning in FY 2005) and ties program outputs to expenses. Quarterly outputs by state are reviewed at mid-year, third quarter, and at year-end, and program priorities and resources are adjusted throughout the year based on state office accomplishments.

Evidence: MIS reports and LR 2000 data, including data reported in BLM's annual Public Land Statistics reports. BLM Mid-Year report -- "Review of Key Program Elements for FY 2004 MYR". NM and NV GCDB performance-based contracts.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: BLM managers are held accountable through BLM's personnel appraisal system to accomplish assigned tasks (including those accomplished through contractors) and to obligate appropriated funds, but appraisals are not linked to broader program goals. Program performance is assessed bi-annually through MIS and LR2000.

Evidence: EPPR format, and review of annual performance of managers and staff; FY 2004 Annual Work Plan; Planning Target Allocations for FY 2003 and FY 2004.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: Program funds (appropriated and cost reimbursable) are obligated properly and in a timely manner. Funds are obligated for the various use authorization activities, according to established criteria and program direction. BLM has established a guideline for its offices to allow no more than 2% carryover. In 2002, the Realty and Ownership program carried over 1.2% of available funding and in 2003, the program carried over 0.5% of its funds. Internal quarterly reviews are also used to ensure that funds are spent for the intended purpose.

Evidence: FY2003 and FY2004 Annual Work Plans, General Directives MIS and LR 2000 reports. FY 2003-2004 Appropriations language, Planning Target Allocation analysis for FY2003. Wind Energy plan of development (POD). Cost Management Review.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The BLM uses its MIS to track the performance and unit costs for all programs. An annual performance analysis is conducted to compare offices in achieving reduced unit costs and maximum output. BLM is a leader in the Department of the Interior in implementing IT solutions to improve management processes. BLM's Activity-Based Costing (ABC) system and MIS are being used as templates for other bureaus as DOI works to develop an integrated Department-wide system. MIS inputs provide data on costs for processing various types of land tenure and use authorization actions. BLM has authority for and is increasing the use of cost reimbursement for processing ROWs. Application forms for many types of applications are provided to customers on BLM's website. Through E-Gov initiatives, BLM is developing systems so applications can be filed and bill payments can be made electronically. Competitive sourcing/contracting is being used to complete cadastral survey work that has been deemed commercial in nature. The program also recently created standards for the use of global positioning systems (GPS) in completing cadastral surveys, a technology that could significantly improve efficiencies in the program.

Evidence: GAO Report 03-503 identifies BLM's performance budgeting system as an example that may be duplicated by the Forest Service in order to improve accountability. FY2003 and FY2004 Annual Work Plans, MIS and LR 2000 reports. The Cadastral Survey Program recently created standards for the use of global positioning systems (GPS).

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The various aspects of the Realty and Ownership program require continuous coordination with other BLM programs (e.g., cultural, wildlife, recreation programs) as well as other components of the Realty program (e.g., the Alaska conveyance workload is inextricably tied to the availability of survey plats generated by the cadastral survey group). BLM enters into a wide variety of agreements with industry, state governments, and other federal agencies which have jurisdiction and/or interest in BLM realty actions. Federal agencies within DOI and the Department of Agriculture often work under the survey authority of the BLM, and the Interagency Cadastral Coordination Council, which is part of the cadastral survey program component, facilitates interagency communication and cooperation.

Evidence: Sample Letters of Intent; ICCC Charter; Data Sharing Agreement between the Forest Service, MMS, and BLM. BLM Legacy Rehost 2000 System Internal Service Level Agreement (July 2004). Interagency Agreement Number AG2000K039 Modification 09 Between BLM and BIA.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: BLM has received seven consecutive unqualified audit opinions, of which the realty and ownership program is a significant component. Key to its success has been the availability of timely and accurate financial information made available to all employees through its MIS. BLM has also met or exceeded its goals under the Prompt Payment Act and goals to reduce or eliminate erroneous payments. A GAO Audit conducted in 2000 (GAO RCED-00-73) found a significant error in the use of escrow accounts to allow processing of several land exchanges involving one proponent. To resolve this issue, BLM offices were instructed to immediately stop using such escrow accounts and treat each exchange as an independent action. Of the program reports reviewed to date, none show any improprieties. There are no current material weaknesses identified in the program.

Evidence: Status of Pending Office of Inspector General Audits (May 1, 2004), MIS data, recent audit reports, 2004 BLM Planning Target Allocation Cost Management Review, GAO report RCED-00-73.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: Management reviews and monitoring trips are performed to address and correct management deficiencies as they are identified. BLM is also in the process of linking individual performance evaluations to program performance goals and measures. The agency is working to address a longstanding management problem in one area of the program. Numerous GAO and IG reports over many years have pointed out problems with BLM's land exchange process. More recently, an assessment completed by the Appraisal Foundation in 2002 identified specific problems with BLM's land appraisal process and recommended changes to ensure the integrity of the program. The Department recently took a major step to address these problems by establishing a separate Departmental appraisal office distinct from BLM's other realty responsibilities. BLM is also working to address other deficiencies identified by an internal working group as a result of the Appraisal Foundation report. Problems have also been identified in BLM's land sale program and while more still needs to be done, BLM is taking steps to address these problems. For example, BLM expects to soon publish a proposed rulemaking that would update the Desert Land Entry regulations to increase cost recovery for processing these applications.

Evidence: Appraisal and Exchange Workgroup Final Report (May 2003). 2004 BLM Planning Target Allocation Cost Management Review. GAO Report 01-882 'BLM and the Forest Service; Federal Taxpayers Could Benefit More From Land Sales; DOI Response to GAO report ' Letter to House Committee on Government Reform (May 2002); IM 2002-260 ' Policy, Guidelines, and Procedures for Processing Color-of-Title Claims. IM 2002-197 ' Alternative Methods for Monitoring Compliance on Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act Leases and Patents IM 2002-143 ' Competitive Sale of Public Lands; and IM 2003-259 ' Non Competitive Sale of Public Lands.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: Previous performance measures were inadequate in determining program performance. New measures have been developed, but baseline data and targets are not yet available for some measures, so progress is difficult to assess for many program components. However, the Realty and Ownership program is an established program with, at a generic level, fairly straightforward goals related to meeting customer demand. Even though BLM's past performance measures have not focused sufficiently on outcomes, the link between the outputs that BLM does track and the broader program outcomes is relatively clear. Based on the output data that BLM does collect on a regular basis, it appears the agency is making some progress toward its outcome goals. Thus, the program receives partial credit for this question.

Evidence: See attached list of measures, 2004 and 2005 Budget Justifications, MIS, Public Land Statistics, Year end reports on acreage for Alaska.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: As with BLM's long-term goals, previous performance measures were inadequate in determining program performance, but based on the output data available, it appears the agency is making some progress toward its outcome goals. Thus, the program receives partial credit for this question.

Evidence: See attached list of measures, 2004 and 2005 Budget Justifications.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: Improved efficiencies to the Realty Use Authorization program include: identification of additional ROW corridors and the use of master agreements (e.g., Master Agreement with Nevada Power) between ROW applicants and BLM. New wind energy ROW policy provides guidance on processing wind energy ROW applications. The Cadastral Survey Program has achieved efficiencies through contracting, and IT studies at the State level identify which survey research methods provide the best value. The Cadastral Survey Program employs technological advances such as global positioning systems, survey-based geographic information systems, and the geographic coordinate database to increase performance. While some efficiencies are obvious, the program could do a somewhat better job at documenting how program improvements have increased efficiencies and/or cost effectiveness.

Evidence: IM 2003-060 and changes 1 and 2. FY 2005 Budget Justification. FY 2004 Annual Work Plan; FY2004 Planning Target Allocation Cost Management Review; Master Agreement with Nevada Power. BLM analysis of cost savings from use of GIS in cadastral survey program (May 2000).

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: A few other Federal land management agencies have authorities for acquiring lands and authorizing land uses, but these authorities vary so much from BLM's broad authorities that they are not readily comparable. No known studies comparing such processes have been completed to our knowledge. The BLM, as authorized by Congress, is the only agency in the Federal government that can perform official surveys on Federally-managed lands. Similar authority does not apply to the private sector.

Evidence: Relevant statutes as identified in Question 1.1.

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: Because the program lacks independent evaluations of sufficient scope, quality, and regularity covering all parts of the program, BLM cannot fully demonstrate that the program is meeting this requirement. Most independent evaluations of the Realty and Ownership program have focused on parts of the program where problems were already known to exist. Numerous GAO and OIG reports over the years have highlighted problems with BLM land exchanges and related issues. Although these reports indicated clear deficiencies, BLM has addressed or is in the process of addressing some of the most pressing problems. GAO and OIG reports emphasizing ROW processing concentrated on two issues: the need to improve cost recovery and the collection of rents for ROWs on public lands. Cost recovery regulations, which will update cost recovery category fees, are in the final stages of preparation. BLM has been prohibited by Congress from preparing any studies related to the updating of ROW rentals.

Evidence: Agency actions to respond to prior OIG and GAO reports (as previously identified); Appraisal Institute Report and response prepared by the team assigned to make recommendations to correct deficiencies.