1.) In 1980, Interior established a regulatory process intended to provide a  uniform approach for taking land in trust. BIA Generally Followed the Regulations for Taking Land in Trust, and These Regulations Provide BIA with Wide Discretion

BIA generally followed its regulations for processing the 87 land in trust  applications with decisions in fiscal year 2005, such as properly notifying  affected state and local governments and providing time for comments and  appeals. The criteria in the regulations for taking land in trust are not  specific and do not include guidelines for how BIA should apply them. Eight of the 87 decisions in fiscal year 2005 had been appealed as of  September 30, 2005. The  remaining five appeals were pending as of September 30, 2005. For example, one criterion requires BIA to consider the impact of lost tax  revenues on state and local governments. In commenting on applications prior to decisions  made in fiscal year 2005, state and local governments opposed 12 of 87  applications, or about 14 percent, mainly citing concerns about lost tax  revenues and jurisdictional issues. As of the end of fiscal year  2005, a total of 45 decisions were pending review on appeal, including 5  decisions from fiscal year 2005. Although we found little opposition to the  applications with decisions in fiscal year 2005, some state and local  governments we contacted said (1) they did not have access to sufficient  information about the land in trust applications and (2) the 30-day  comment period was not sufficient time in which to comment. Citing Primarily Taxes and Jurisdictional Issues, State and Local Governments Opposed Only a Small Percentage of the Applications with Decisions in Fiscal Year 2005

For the 87 land in trust applications with decisions in fiscal year 2005, state  and local governments opposed or raised concerns—primarily involving  taxes and jurisdictional issues—on 12 applications prior to BIA’s decision. BIA’s Land in Trust Database Is Incomplete and Inaccurate, and BIA is Planning to Redesign It

During the course of our review, we found the data in BIA’s land in trust  database, which was implemented agencywide in August 2004, were  frequently incomplete and inaccurate. BIA has already recognized some shortcomings and initiated an effort to  re-evaluate and redesign the database, as necessary. The database was  hastily developed and deployed without defining and documenting user  requirements throughout the agency and clearly defining data fields. We found that not all of the applications had been entered into the  database, and the status of an application, as either approved, denied, or  pending, was frequently incorrect in the database. A properly designed and implemented database with accurate  data would provide BIA with important information to help better manage  the land in trust process. Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve timeliness and transparency and ensure better management of  BIA’s land in trust process, we recommend that the Secretary of the Interior  direct the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs to take the following three  actions:  reinforce the requirement that all decisions be fully documented;  move forward with adopting revisions to the land in trust regulations  that include (1) specific time frames for BIA to make a decision once an  application is complete and (2) guidelines for providing state and local  governments more information on the applications and a longer period  of time to provide meaningful comments on the applications; and  institute internal controls to help ensure the accuracy and reliability of  the data in the land in trust database, as part of the redesign of the  existing system. In response to this direction  and subsequent discussions with congressional staff, we (1) assessed the  extent to which BIA’s processing of land in trust applications followed its  regulations, (2) determined the extent to which applications were  processed in a timely manner, and (3) identified any state and local  government concerns about land in trust applications and how they were  addressed in BIA’s decision-making process. To determine whether applications were processed in a timely manner,  we compared the processing times for (1) 87 applications with decisions  in fiscal year 2005 and (2) 28 complete off-reservation applications  awaiting comments from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Indian  Affairs to the 120-business days, or about 6 months, time frame BIA is  considering imposing for making decisions on on- and off-reservation  land in trust applications. In addition, we compared the length of time that 34  appealed decisions had been awaiting resolution by BIA regional  directors with the current 60-day time frame set forth in the regulations  on appeals.
Why GAO Did This Study

In 1980, the Department of the Interior (Interior) established regulations to provide a uniform approach for taking land in trust. Trust status means the government holds title to the land in trust for tribes and individual Indians. Trust land is exempt from state and local taxes. The Secretary of the Interior has delegated primary responsibility for processing, reviewing, and deciding on applications to take land in trust to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). As part of this process, BIA must seek comments from affected state and local governments. Congress directed GAO to study BIA's processing of land in trust applications to determine the extent to which (1) BIA followed its regulations, (2) applications were processed in a timely manner, and to (3) identify any concerns raised by state and local governments about land in trust applications. GAO is also providing information on problems with BIA's data on the processing of land in trust applications.

What GAO Found

BIA generally followed its regulations for processing land in trust applications, although most of the criteria in the regulations are not specific and thus do not offer clear guidance for how BIA should apply them. For example, there are no guidelines on how to weigh the impact of lost tax revenues on local governments. As a result, the BIA decision maker has wide discretion. Generally, all of the 87 applications with decisions in fiscal year 2005 were approved, except for 1 denial and 6 that were closed because the applications were incomplete. BIA is considering revisions to the regulations that would clarify that applications will generally be approved unless there is clear evidence of significant negative impacts. These revisions would make BIA's decision-making process more transparent. Currently, BIA has no deadlines for making decisions on land in trust applications, but BIA is considering imposing about a 6-month time frame. In addition, there is also a 60-day time frame for BIA regional directors to rule on appeals. Based on these time frames, it appears that many land in trust applications have not been processed in a timely manner. First, the median processing time for the 87 applications with decisions in fiscal year 2005 was 1.2 years--ranging from 58 days to almost 19 years. Second, 28 complete off-reservation applications had been waiting an average of 1.4 years for a decision as of September 30, 2005. Third, 34 appeals had been waiting an average of about 3 years for resolution by a BIA regional director as of September 30, 2005. When opposing land in trust applications or appealing decisions, state and local governments principally cited concerns about lost tax revenues and jurisdictional issues. In commenting on applications prior to decisions made in fiscal year 2005, state and local governments opposed 12 of 87 applications, or about 14 percent. Also, as of September 30, 2005, 45 decisions were on administrative appeal to either a BIA regional director or Interior's Board of Indian Appeals, including 5 appealed decisions from fiscal year 2005. Although GAO found little opposition to applications with decisions in fiscal year 2005, some state and local governments we contacted said (1) they did not have access to sufficient information about the land in trust applications and (2) the 30-day comment period was not sufficient time in which to comment. GAO found the data in BIA's land in trust database, which was implemented in August 2004, were frequently incomplete and inaccurate. The database was hastily developed without defining user requirements and data fields. Specifically, (1) not all of the applications had been entered into the database and (2) the status of an application, as either approved or denied, was frequently incorrect. A properly designed and implemented database with accurate data would provide BIA with important information to help better manage the land in trust process. BIA has already recognized the shortcomings and initiated an effort to redesign the database as necessary.