For example, oil and gas resources can be nominated for lease  by operators, the tribe, or an individual Indian mineral owner. However, other offices within Interior also have a role in the  development and accounting of Indian energy resources in regard to CAs. Interior Has Taken Actions to Streamline the Review and Approval Process, but Three Weaknesses Will Effect Its Ability to Assess the Results of Its Actions

In the summer of 2015, BIA and BLM issued guidance in an effort to  streamline the CA review and approval process and address the backlog  of Indian CAs awaiting review and approval. Interior Will Not Be Able to Fully Assess the Results of Its Recent Actions to Streamline the CA Process without Required Time Frames and a Systematic Tracking Mechanism

BIA and BLM developed the revised guidance with the intent to expedite  the review and approval of CAs and ensure the more timely payment of  royalties to Indian mineral owners, but Interior has established few time  frames for the BIA and BLM offices that perform tasks during the review  and approval process and BIA has no mechanism in place to track Indian  CAs. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that  management should define objectives to include what is to be achieved,  who is to achieve it, how it will be achieved, and the time frames for  achievement. In addition, according to the revised guidance, it is BIA’s responsibility to  monitor the review and approval times for Indian CAs; however, BIA  currently has no systematic mechanism in place to track an Indian CA  through the review and approval process and the revised guidance did  not establish such a mechanism. An interagency plan  created in May 2014 in response to Executive Order 13604 notes that the  ability to track and monitor the review of permits and applications is a best  practice to improve the federal review process. However, Standards for  Internal Controls in the Federal Government states that management  should compare actual performance to expected results and analyze  significant differences. Specifically, as Interior has not established  required time frames by which an Indian CA should be reviewed and  approved, BIA will be limited in its ability to hold offices accountable to  ensure that Indian CAs are reviewed and approved in a timely manner. Finally, because Interior does not have a plan to assess the results of its  revised guidance on the Indian CA process, the agency will be unable to  determine whether it has achieved its policy objectives, such as  decreasing the time needed to review and approve Indian CAs, designed  to result in the more timely disbursement of royalties to Indian mineral  owners. Recommendations for Executive Action

We recommend that the Secretary of the Interior direct the Director of the  Bureau of Indian Affairs and, as appropriate, the Director of the Bureau of  Land Management to take the following three actions:
Establish required time frames for the review and approval of Indian  CAs to ensure a more timely CA process. Develop a systematic mechanism for tracking Indian CAs through the  review and approval process to determine, among other things,  whether the revised CA process meets newly established time  frames.
Why GAO Did This Study

The development of Indian-owned oil and gas resources is one of the largest revenue generators in Indian country, and individual Indian mineral owners may rely on royalty payments from such development to pay for living expenses. Various offices within Interior are responsible for management and oversight of oil and gas development on Indian lands. In some cases, Indian-owned resources cannot be developed independently. In those cases, BLM reviews a revenue-sharing agreement known as a CA, and BIA approves it. Prior GAO reports identified an extensive backlog of Indian CAs awaiting review and approval, leading to significant delays in the payments of royalties to Indian mineral owners.
GAO was asked to review Interior's review and approval process for Indian CAs. This report examines Interior's recent guidance intended to streamline the review and approval process for Indian CAs and the effect this guidance may have on the timeliness of the process. GAO analyzed agency procedures and guidance and interviewed Interior officials responsible for managing the CA review and approval process.

What GAO Found

The Department of the Interior (Interior) recently issued guidance intended to streamline the review process and reduce the approval times of oil and gas revenue-sharing agreements—called a communitization agreement (CA)—that include Indian resources. Under the revised guidance, for example, oil and gas operators are to provide simplified, less detailed information in their CA applications. In addition, the revised guidance eliminates some duplication in the Bureau of Indian Affairs' (BIA) and the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) review processes.
It is too early to determine the effect the revised guidance will have on the CA process, but Interior will be limited in its ability to assess the results of its actions for three reasons:
Interior has established few time frames for the BIA and BLM offices that perform key tasks during the review and approval process. None of these time frames apply to BIA, which is ultimately responsible for approving an Indian CA. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that management should define objectives to include, among other things, time frames for achievement. Without time frames, BIA will be limited in its ability to hold offices accountable to ensure a more timely review process.
BIA has no systematic way to track an Indian CA through the review process. A 2014 interagency plan to improve the federal permitting review process stated that the ability to track review times is a best practice to improve the federal review process. Without a systematic tracking mechanism, BIA will be unable to fulfill its monitoring role to ensure that documents move through the review process expeditiously.
Interior's revised guidance does not include a plan to evaluate whether its efforts to streamline the process result in the more timely review of Indian CAs, and BIA officials told GAO that they have no plans for such an assessment. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that management should compare actual performance to expected results and analyze significant differences. Without conducting such an assessment, Interior will not know if the revised guidance has resulted in the more timely payments of royalties to Indian mineral owners.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that Interior establish required time frames for the review and approval of Indian CAs, develop a systematic mechanism to track these CAs through the review process, and assess its actions to improve the timeliness of the process. Interior concurred with GAO's recommendations and described the actions it plans to take in response.