oversight

Recommendation for Reconsideration of Scope of Bureau of Indian Affairs Fee Retention Authority

Published by the Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector General on 2020-07-16.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

                                                                         INSPECTION




                         OF
               INSPECTOR GENERAL
               U.S.DEPARTMENT OFTHE INTERIOR




 Recommendation for
 Reconsideration of Scope of
 the Bureau of Indian Affairs’
 Fee Retention Authority




 This is a revised version of the report prepared for public release.

 In recognition of Secretarial Order No. 3380, we are providing estimated costs
 associated with certain work products. Applying a formula involving prior salary and
 benefit expenses, we estimate the cost of preparing this report to be $173,000.


Report No.: 2019-ER-012                                                      July 2020
                 OFFICE OF
                 INSPECTOR GENERAL
                 U.S.DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR



Memorandum

To:                Daniel H. Jorjani
                   Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor

From:              Mark Lee Greenblatt
                   Inspector General

Subject:           Final Inspection Report – Recommendation for Reconsideration of Scope of the
                   Bureau of Indian Affairs’ Fee Retention Authority
                   Report No. 2019-ER-012

        We initiated this inspection in response to your office’s review of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs’ (BIA’s) possible violation of the Antideficiency Act (ADA) 1 for failure to remit
collected fees to the U.S. Department of the Treasury. We found that the BIA collected around
$12 million in fees between 2013 and 2018 and retained most of it. Although your office directed
full, mandatory remittance of collected fees to the Treasury, we determined that the BIA may
have other statutory retention authority not previously considered. We concluded that the U.S.
Department of the Interior (DOI) was in the best position to make a final decision on this issue
because it involves a matter of statutory interpretation that may require consideration of effects
on Indian tribes. We therefore recommend that you revisit your office’s previous opinion about
the remittance of fees and share additional guidance as appropriate with all BIA regions and our
office.

        Our objective was to determine (1) whether the BIA violated the ADA by retaining fees
rather than remitting them to the Treasury and (2) whether internal controls were in place to
manage the collection of such fees. We found that determining whether the BIA violated the
ADA depends on whether the BIA is authorized by 25 U.S.C. § 14b (Section 14b) to retain any
25 U.S.C. § 413 (Section 413) fees. Unclear understanding of how to handle fees exposes the
BIA to risks of ADA violations. We further found that internal controls were not in place
because BIA officials were confused about the application of both statutes. We present an
alternative interpretation of the statutes for the Office of the Solicitor’s (SOL’s) consideration.
See Attachment 1 for a summary of our scope and methodology.




1 Among other things, the ADA prohibits making or authorizing an expenditure from, or creating or authorizing an obligation

under, any appropriation or fund in excess of the amount available in the appropriation or fund unless authorized by law
(Title 31 U.S.C. § 1341). Federal employees who violate the ADA may be subject to administrative and penal sanctions, such as
suspension from duty without pay, removal from office, fines, or imprisonment.



                                      Office of Inspector General | Washington, DC
BIA Officials Express Confusion About Whether They Can
Retain and Reuse Section 413 Fees
         In February 2016, the BIA Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) requested legal
advice from the SOL regarding the BIA’s retention and reuse of Section 413 fees to offset
administrative costs. The BIA’s request identified Section 413 fees as coming from Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) requests and services provided to Indian tribes and individual Indians,
including grazing permits, business leases, gift deeds, agriculture leases, oil and gas leases, land
sales, range permits, land exchanges, dishonored checks, demand letters, seismic permits,
assignments, Tideland, home-site leases, and pasture leases.

July 2016 SOL Opinion on Section 413 Fee Collection and Potential ADA
Violation

        The SOL responded to the OCFO’s request in a July 2016 memorandum, concluding that
the BIA has statutory authority to charge fees for services provided to Indian tribes and
individual Indians and for processing FOIA requests, but according to Section 413, it cannot
retain and use such fees (see Attachment 2). The SOL stated the BIA must remit all
administrative fees collected under Section 413 to the Treasury, except for fees associated with
Indian tribal funds. 2 The SOL also stated that further retention of Section 413 fees, absent
statutory authority, would augment the BIA’s appropriations and therefore violate the ADA.

June 2017 SOL Opinion on Section 14b Fee Retention

        In June 2017, the SOL sent a second memorandum to the BIA reiterating the BIA’s
requirement to remit Section 413 fees to the Treasury (see Attachment 3). This memorandum
addressed Section 14b, stating that both Section 413 and Section 14b provide overlapping
authority for BIA to charge fees, but they differed in such matters as the source and purpose for
collecting the fees. This 2017 SOL memorandum concluded that fees collected under Section
413 should be remitted to the Treasury, while fees collected for other goods and services may be
credited back, consistent with Section 14b.

       Despite the SOL’s guidance, the BIA continued to retain and reuse Section 413 fees. On
September 21, 2017, the SOL emailed the BIA to instruct the BIA to “take whatever action is
necessary to stop any further disbursements. Retaining and spending the fees without statutory
authorization is a violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act, and with each additional (unauthorized)
disbursement the dollar amount of the violation grows.”

        A BIA email correspondence indicated that when the SOL ordered the BIA to remit all
Section 413 fees to the Treasury, the BIA had already spent approximately $1.1 million of the
$1.5 million it had collected in FY 2017. The BIA recouped the $1.1 million in Section 413 fees
it had spent and later remitted the entire $1.5 million for FY 2017 to the Treasury.




2   During our review, we did not encounter this exception.


                                                              2
The OIG’s Opinion on Application of the Two Statutes

        In July 2018, the SOL advised us that the BIA’s handling of fees before FY 2017 may
have violated the ADA. In response to the SOL, we reviewed the opinions expressed in the two
SOL memoranda but concluded that the DOI should reconsider the application of Sections 413
and 14b, along with any appropriate consideration of the effects on Indian tribes (see Attachment
4). This recommendation is based in part on our view that Section 14b might provide the BIA the
authority to retain some Section 413 fees, rather than simply provide for additional overlapping
fee collection authority as the SOL opined.

        In short, the express language of Section 14b provides that the Secretary “is authorized to
retain collections from the public in payment for goods and services provided by the Bureau of
Indian Affairs.” We relied in part on the difference between the terms “collect” and “retain”
within Sections 413 and 14b, concluding that Section 14b does not authorize any new
collections; rather, it provides authority to retain funds otherwise lawfully collected “from the
public.” We therefore recommend the DOI determine whether the authority accorded by Section
14b covers any amounts collected “from the public” by the BIA pursuant to Section 413. The
DOI is in the best position to make this determination because it may involve application of the
statutory rule of construction described in Chickasaw Nation v. United States, 534 U.S. 84, 94
(2001). (Noting that the Court has held that “statutes are to be construed liberally in favor of the
Indians with ambiguous provisions interpreted to their benefit.”)

The BIA May Be at Risk of Violating the ADA
       Without clear guidance on Sections 413 and 14b, the BIA may be at risk of violating the
ADA. While the scope of our inspection focused on fees the BIA collected in FYs 2016 and
2017, we reviewed fees collected since FY 2013 to analyze fee collection trends and found the
BIA collected more than $12 million in Section 413 fees (see Figure 1).

                            Figure 1: Section 413 Fees Collected
                               From FYs 2013 Through 2018


                    Fiscal Year        Fees Collected Under Section 413*

                       2013                                         $3,667,432
                       2014                                         $1,858,105
                       2015                                         $1,988,931
                       2016                                         $1,866,765
                       2017                                         $1,459,415
                       2018                                         $1,175,924

                       Total                                     $12,016,572
                  *We did not report Section 413 fees collected for services
                  related to timber because Section 413 authorizes the
                  retention and reuse of those fees.



                                                 3
        Of the more than $12 million in Section 413 fees collected from FYs 2013 through 2018,
we found that the BIA retained and reused approximately $9.4 million in FYs 2013 to 2016 for
office supplies, salaries, and in some instances, reimbursement to Indian tribes for spending
shortfalls. The BIA remitted approximately $2.6 million in fees to the Treasury in FYs 2017 and
2018 after the SOL advised the BIA that it was violating the ADA by retaining and reusing those
fees.

The BIA Did Not Implement Effective Internal Controls
Because of Uncertainty in Applying Sections 413 and 14b
        We found that, because of the uncertainty regarding Sections 413 and 14b, the BIA did
not implement effective internal controls related to fee collection, tracking, and retention.
Specifically, the BIA did not create policies, procedures, or training materials specific to fee
collection under Section 413. As a result, each of the BIA’s 12 regions implemented collections
under Sections 413 and 14b differently. For example:

       •   Of the BIA’s 12 regional offices, 3 did not collect any fees during FYs 2016 and
           2017. In addition, three of the nine offices that did collect fees were discretionary in
           the fees charged during FYs 2016 and 2017 (see Attachment 5).

       •   BIA employees did not know if the fees collected came under Sections 413 or 14b.
           Some regions identified Section 413 fee collections as Section 14b; however, when
           we reviewed accounting data, we determined that regions collected fees under the
           authority of Section 413.

       The following are other examples where internal controls and specific guidance would
enable consistent collection:

       •   BIA employees said the only guidance they received about Section 413 collection
           was the SOL’s June 2017 memorandum directing the BIA to remit all Section 413
           fees collected to the Treasury.

       •   In the absence of specific guidance or internal controls related to Sections 413 and
           14b, BIA employees used the Financial Management Collection Procedures
           handbook, the Suspense Deposit Non-Trust handbook, and the Indian Self-
           Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (Public Law 93-638) for
           guidance. According to OCFO correspondence from February 2019, these procedures
           and handbooks were obsolete, and we found that Public Law 93-638 does not outline
           fee collection procedures. BIA correspondence implied the BIA was awaiting a
           definitive opinion from the SOL before issuing updated policies.

       •   The BIA did not create a Section 413 standardized fee schedule that it could distribute
           to the regional offices to ensure consistency.

       According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s (GAO’s) Standards for
Internal Control in the Federal Government, the BIA must design policies and procedures to


                                                 4
address Section 413 collections and waivers and include those policies and procedures in its
operations. The GAO’s standards also advise agencies to train employees to develop
competencies appropriate for key roles and reinforce standards of conduct. The BIA cannot
provide its employees with guidance and training related to Section 413 fee collections because
of the ambiguous language in Sections 413 and 14b.

Conclusion and Recommendations
        Two Federal laws, Sections 413 and 14b, must be harmonized to determine whether the
BIA is authorized to retain and reuse fees it collects for work it performs for Indian tribes or for
individual Indians. We present an interpretation that may allow the BIA to retain at least some of
the fees without violating the ADA. The DOI is in the best position to determine whether such an
interpretation is reasonable and whether the SOL should revise its current guidance to the BIA.
Once it reevaluates its position, it can determine whether its fee retention violates the ADA.

       We recommend the SOL:

       1. Reconsider its opinion by determining whether the authority accorded by Section 14b
          authorizes retaining some fees collected under Section 413, and to the extent the
          statutory language is ambiguous, resolve any ambiguity in favor of benefiting Indian
          tribes, in accordance with Chickasaw Nation v. United States, 534 U.S. 84, 94 (2001)

       2. Issue appropriate guidance to the BIA regions consistent with its interpretation

        We asked the SOL to provide a written response to a draft version of this report by
May 10, 2020, including information on any actions taken or planned to address the above
recommendations. On May 12, 2020, we contacted an SOL representative to follow up on our
request, but as of the date of this report we have not received a response. Therefore, we are
considering both recommendations unresolved, and we will refer them to the Assistant Secretary
for Policy, Management and Budget for resolution (see Attachment 6).

       Although we did not receive a response, we appreciate the SOL’s consideration of our
view on this complicated issue, and we acknowledge that SOL staff may not have responded
because they are addressing priorities related to the COVID-19 pandemic at this time. If you
have any questions about this report, please contact me at 202-208-5745.

      The legislation creating the Office of Inspector General requires that we report to
Congress semiannually on all audit, inspection, and evaluation reports issued; actions taken to
implement our recommendations; and recommendations that have not been implemented.

Attachments (6)




                                                 5
Attachment 1: Scope and Methodology
Scope

         The scope of our inspection was limited to whether the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
collected and remitted fees to the U.S. Department of the Treasury pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 413,
“Fees to cover cost of work performed for Indians” (Section 413) during fiscal years (FYs) 2016
to 2017. Section 413 authorizes the BIA to collect fees for work the BIA performed on behalf of
Indian tribes or for individual Indians, and requires those fees to be remitted to the Treasury as
miscellaneous receipts. Our review did not include site visits and in-depth analyses of fee
collection processes and documents. We attempted to review fees collected under 25 U.S.C.
§ 14b (Section 14b), “Disposition of funds received from public for goods and services provided
by Bureau of Indian Affairs,” which authorizes the BIA to retain fees collected from the public.
After consultation with the BIA, however, we determined that there were no fees collected under
that statute. Although our scope ranged from FYs 2016 through 2017, we also reviewed Office
of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) financial records from FY 2013 to FY 2018 to analyze fee
collection trends.

Methodology

        To accomplish our objective, we:

        •   Reviewed Sections 413 and 14b statutes, other relevant Federal regulations, the
            Antideficiency Act, and the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Standards for
            Internal Control in the Federal Government

        •   Interviewed officials from the Office of the Solicitor (SOL), the OCFO, the Office of
            the Special Trustee for American Indians, and 12 BIA regional offices to understand
            their processes for collecting, tracking, and remitting fees associated with Sections
            413 and 14b

        •   Gathered background information about the 12 regional offices from the BIA’s
            website

        •   Reviewed legal opinions from the SOL

        •   Prepared an alternative interpretation of Sections 413 and 14b for SOL’s
            consideration

        •   Reviewed OCFO Section 413 regional activities reports for FYs 2013 through 2018

        We relied on computer-generated data provided to us by the OCFO for Section 413 fee
collections from FYs 2013 through 2018. We conducted our inspection in accordance with the
Quality Standards for Inspection and Evaluation issued by the Counsel of the Inspectors General
on Integrity and Efficiency. We believe that the work performed provides a reasonable basis for
our conclusions.


                                                6
Attachment 2: Office of the Solicitor’s July 2016
Memorandum

Exempt from disclosure.




                             7
Attachment 3: Office of the Solicitor’s June 2017
Memorandum

Exempt from disclosure.




                             8
Attachment 4: The Office of Inspector General’s Legal
Opinion

Must fees collected by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) be returned to the
U.S. Department of the Treasury, or may they be retained and used in
accordance with law?

        The BIA collects administrative fees pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 413 (Section 413), and this
case presents an issue of the proper disposition of these funds. The general rule is that money
collected by Federal agencies must be deposited in the Treasury, except when otherwise
authorized by statute. Thus, Section 413 expressly states “amounts so collected shall be covered
into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts,” subject to certain exceptions.

        Two clear exceptions are found in statutes. The first is in Section 413 itself, which directs
the BIA to credit “tribal funds” when the fees relate to work paid with tribal funds. The second is
25 U.S.C. § 3110, which requires fees collected from Indian timber sales to be used for certain
forest management expenses. Both authorizations, as discussed further below, permit the BIA to
retain and use some fees collected under Section 413.

        After accounting for fees used under those exceptions, remaining balances should be
returned to the Treasury unless the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) determines any
additional fees may be retained pursuant to another provision, 25 U.S.C. § 14b (Section 14b). As
explained below, Section 14b, authorizes the BIA to “retain collections” pertaining to services
provided by the BIA. We find Section 14b is ambiguous as to whether it authorizes retaining any
fees collected under Section 413.

        We conclude that the DOI is in the best position to address that ambiguity, partly because
it presents a matter of statutory interpretation, which necessarily must include consideration of
the effects on Indian tribes. 3 Depending on the outcome of that determination, and after
accounting for other amounts discussed above, any remaining funds should be returned to the
Treasury.

Discussion

        It is well settled that agencies must be statutorily authorized before collecting money and
retaining or spending it. 4 Unless otherwise authorized, collected funds must be paid into the
Treasury as “miscellaneous receipts” (Title 31 U.S.C. § 3302(b)). Even if an agency is
authorized to collect funds, it may not retain and use them without additional statutory
authority. 5 The BIA has both collection and retention authorities as discussed below.




3 See Chickasaw Nation v. United States, 534 U.S. 84, 94 (2001): Canons of statutory interpretation involving Indian law require

courts to construe ambiguous provisions liberally in favor of benefiting Indians.
4 See U.S. Gen. Accounting Office, Appropriations Law—Vol. I., Page 1-12 (2004).
5 Comptroller General, National Institutes of Health - Food at Government-Sponsored Conferences, B-300826 (Mar. 3, 2005)

(reprinted 2005 WL 502825).


                                                               9
The BIA’s Authority To Collect Fees

        Beginning in 1922, the BIA was authorized by Section 413 to charge fees “to cover the
cost of any and all work performed for Indian tribes or for individual Indians.” The BIA has long
relied on this authority to impose fees in connection with performing various administrative
services related to Indians and their lands. Examples include charging administrative fees for
issuing an agricultural lease on Indian land and for grazing permits (Title 25 C.F.R. § 162.241
(agricultural lease); § 166.500 (grazing permit)). In pertinent part, Section 413 states:

          The Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized, in his discretion, and under
          such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, to collect reasonable fees to cover
          the cost of any and all work performed for Indian tribes or for individual Indians,
          to be paid by vendees, lessees, or assignees, or deducted from the proceeds of
          sale, leases, or other sources of revenue.

        As discussed above, fees collected by the BIA pursuant to this authority must be paid to
the Treasury unless otherwise authorized. Indeed, as originally enacted in 1922, Section 413
included a proviso expressly reiterating such requirement, stating, “Provided, That the amounts
so collected shall be covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.” 6 In subsequent years,
Congress made exceptions as discussed below.

Expenses Paid From Tribal Funds

        In 1933, Congress added new authority for the BIA to retain some of these collected fees,
by enacting an exception to Section 413 for work paid for with tribal funds. 7 This amendment
changed the proviso in Section 413 to its present form, which states: “Provided, That the
amounts so collected shall be covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts, except when
the expenses of the work are paid from Indian tribal funds, in which event they shall be credited
to such funds.”

        Historically, the DOI has applied the tribal funds exception in situations when labor is
performed by tribal members, who are paid by the tribe and reimbursed with fees collected by
the BIA or are paid directly with the funds collected through fees. For example, early opinions of
the DOI’s Solicitor interpreted the exception to apply in situations in which the BIA reimbursed
tribes for payments to tribal members for conducting the “purely ministerial aspects” of work,
such as the administrative duties involved in issuing a lease. 8 A 1996 decision of the Interior
Board of Indian Appeals noted that tribes may also be involved in directly setting the rates of
fees charged. 9 A 1980 decision by the Comptroller General upheld a BIA process whereby fees


6 See Act of Feb. 14, 1920, ch. 75, § 1, 41 Stat. 415.
7 Act of Mar. 1, 1933, 47 Stat. 1417.
8 Solicitor’s Opinion, Dec. 6, 1946, 59 I.D. 328, 331; see also Solicitor’s Aug. 16, 1956, Letter to Rep. Usher L. Burdick (Noting

“fees collected for clerical and ministerial work connected with the leasing of Indian land may . . . be credited to tribal funds
when such funds have been appropriated by the tribe to pay employees who perform the work.”) (copies obtained from
http://thorpe.ou.edu/sol_opinions).
9 See Welk Park North, D.B.A. Welk Resort Group v. Acting Sacramento Area Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 29 IBIA 213

(I.B.I.A June 27, 1996) (reprinted 1996 WL 432579) (discussing purpose of 1933 amendment and history of the DOI’s
interpretation).


                                                               10
from timber sales were used to pay tribes directly to perform forestry work when the tribes
lacked sufficient funds to pay for it themselves. 10

Timber Sales

       In November 1990, Congress enacted another fee-retention authority in Title 25 U.S.C.
§ 3105. This statute directs the BIA to deduct fees under Section 413 from sales of Indian-owned
timber and use the proceeds, according to a plan approved by the tribe, for costs of forest land
management activities on a reservation (Id., § 3105(a), (c)). It is noted that although Section
3105 expressly carves out a retention exception for certain fees collected under Section 413,
Congress made no changes to the existing text of Section 413, which continues to be the
language quoted above and that contains no reference to Section 3105.

       Based on the foregoing, the BIA should account for fees related to tribal funds and to
timber sales prior to making a payment to the Treasury. Further, the DOI should also determine
whether remaining balances may be retained and used by the BIA pursuant to another authority
discussed below.

Services Provided by the BIA

       In May 1990, Congress enacted Section 14b, “Disposition of funds received from public
for goods and services provided by Bureau of Indian Affairs,” another provision authorizing the
BIA to retain collected funds, which provides as follows:

          The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to retain collections from the public in
          payment for goods and services provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Such
          collections shall be credited to the appropriation account against which
          obligations were incurred in providing such goods and services.

        The statute is ambiguous in that it does not define any key terms, such as “collections,”
“public,” and “goods and services provided by the BIA,” nor does it cross-reference Section 413,
as is the case in Section 3105, nor any other collection statutes. 11 The provision was enacted in a
bill simply entitled “Indian Laws: Miscellaneous Amendments” (Public Law 101–301 May 24,
1990) along with various other unrelated items, and neither the committee hearing transcripts nor
legislative history that we reviewed appeared to provide any helpful interpretive guidance.

       Notwithstanding the almost 30 years since the statute was enacted, we also did not find
any written departmental policy interpretations or consistent practices.

        The plain meaning of the words “Secretary . . . is authorized to retain collections,”
suggests that it affords authority to retain funds, but not to engage in any new collections. As set
forth above, agencies require distinct authorities to collect and to retain funds, and the wording,
“is authorized to retain,” appears to refer only to the latter. The term “collections,” as used in

10Comptroller General, Matter of Group Director, Fraud Task Force, B-197299 (Mar 3, 1980) (reprinted 1980 WL 17020).
11For example, although Section 14b makes no reference to any collection authority, it might also authorize retaining collections
pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 9701, under which all Federal agencies are permitted to adopt regulations that provide for collecting, but
not retaining, certain charges for services.


                                                               11
Section 14b, therefore, refers to funds obtained by the BIA via some other distinct collection
authority.

        As discussed above, Section 413 provides for collection authority, and so the question
arises whether any funds collected under Section 413 may be retained under Section 14b. The
answer depends in part on whether administrative fees are “collections from the public in
payment for goods and services provided” by the BIA. To use a hypothetical example, this raises
the question whether an administrative fee paid by a private cattle ranch operator to the BIA for
processing a grazing permit for Indian land might qualify as a “collection” from the “public” in
return for a “service” provided by BIA, within the meaning of Section 14b.

        The Office of the Solicitor (SOL) offered the view in its June 14, 2017 opinion that
Sections 413 and 14b create two overlapping authorizations for collecting the same types of
funds, but with conflicting directions as to how to dispose of them. The SOL opined that Section
413 was a more specific collection authorization than Section 14b, and under such circumstances
the canons of statutory construction required the BIA to apply the requirement in Section 413 to
deposit collected funds to the Treasury.

        As set forth above, however, we found that Section 14b accords only the authority to
retain, not collect, funds. The DOI should decide whether “collections from the public in
payment for goods and services provided” by the BIA includes fees collected under Section 413,
and whether Section 14b permits retention of such fees. In our view, the DOI should first address
these issues, with due consideration of any effects on Indians (see Chickasaw Nation v. United
States, supra.). In conclusion, after the DOI has made this determination, and accounted for other
fees usable under the “tribal funds” and timber sales exceptions, any remaining funds should be
returned to the Treasury.




                                                12
Attachment 5: Bureau of Indian Affairs’ FYs 2016 and 2017
Section 413 Collections

*The number of offices within the region that perform duties related to grazing permits,
business leases, gift deeds, agriculture leases, oil and gas leases, land sales, range permits,
land exchanges, dishonored checks, demand letters, seismic permits, assignments,
Tideland, home-site leases, and pasture leases.

Dollar amounts collected from Office of the Chief Financial Officer reports.
†




                  No. of    No. of   Jurisdictional     Service Area           Section 413 Fees
    Region
                Agencies*   Tribes   Area                 (acres)                     Collected†

                                                                                     FY 16: None
    Region 1:                                                                        FY 17: None
                   2         228     Alaska              424,491,520
    Alaska
                                                                                    Total: None

                                     Maine
                                     Florida
                                     Louisiana
                                                           460,980
                                     Mississippi
                                                        (held in trust)
                                     Alabama
    Region 2:
                   3          27     South Carolina
    Eastern                                                102,677
                                     North Carolina
                                                          (restricted
                                     Massachusetts                                   FY 16: None
                                                            lands)
                                     New York                                        FY 17: None
                                     Connecticut
                                     Rhode Island                                   Total: None

                                                                               FY 16: $16,563.98
    Region 3:
                                     Eastern                                   FY 17: $17,428.96
    Eastern        5          17                          Unknown
                                     Oklahoma
    Oklahoma
                                                                               Total: $33,992.94

                                                                            FY 16: $991,184.92
    Region 4:                        North Dakota
                                                                            FY 17: $637,519.58
    Great          12         16     South Dakota          6 million
    Plains                           Nebraska
                                                                          Total: $1,628,704.50

                                     Iowa                                            FY 16: None
    Region 5:                        Michigan                                        FY 17: None
                   4          36     Minnesota            4.6 million
    Midwest
                                     Wisconsin                                      Total: None




                                              13
                No. of      No. of   Jurisdictional     Service Area            Section 413 Fees
Region
              Agencies*     Tribes   Area                 (acres)                      Collected†

                                                           500,000
                                                         (commercial
                                                           timber)

Region 6:                   Navajo
                   5                 Navajo Nation       4.8 million
Navajo                      Nation
                                                         (woodland)             FY 16: $12,954.16
                                                                                FY 17: $10,609.77
                                                         16.2 million
                                                         (trust lands)      Total: $23,563.93

                                     Washington,                                FY 16: $87,045.29
Region 7:                            Oregon, Idaho,                             FY 17: $94,226.91
                  15          46                          Unknown
Northwest                            Montana,
                                     Southeast Alaska                      Total: $181,272.20

                                                                            FY 16: $183,793.52
Region 8:                                                                   FY 17: $125,743.28
                   4         104     California           Unknown
Pacific
                                                                           Total: $309,536.80

                                                                            FY 16: $357,331.94
Region 9:
                                     Wyoming                                FY 17: $351,691.57
Rocky              7           8                          6.5 million
                                     Montana
Mountain
                                                                           Total: $709,023.51

                                                                            FY 16: $120,259.21
Region 10:
                                     Oklahoma                               FY 17: $105,993.18
Southern           5          24                          Unknown
                                     Kansas
Plains
                                                                           Total: $226,252.39

                                                                                 FY 16: $1,275.00
                                     New Mexico
Region 11:                                                                      FY 17: $15,000.00
                   9          24     Colorado             4.9 million
Southwest
                                     Texas
                                                                            Total: $16,275.00

                                                                            FY 16: $127,771.02
                                     Arizona
Region 12:                                                                  FY 17: $134,493.74
                  13          55     Nevada               Unknown
Western
                                     Utah
                                                                           Total: $262,264.76


Note: Information gathered from the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ website.

*The number of offices within the region that perform duties related to grazing permits,
business leases, gift deeds, agriculture leases, oil and gas leases, land sales, range permits,
land exchanges, dishonored checks, demand letters, seismic permits, assignments,
Tideland, home-site leases, and pasture leases.

†Dollar amounts collected from Office of the Chief Financial Officer reports.




                                               14
Attachment 6: Status of Recommendations

Recommendations   Status            Action Required

                                    Refer recommendations to
                                    the Assistant Secretary for
1, 2              Unresolved
                                    Policy, Management and
                                    Budget for resolution.




                               15
          Report Fraud, Waste,
          and Mismanagement
              Fraud, waste, and mismanagement in
             Government concern everyone: Office
            of Inspector General staff, departmental
             employees, and the general public. We
                actively solicit allegations of any
            inefficient and wasteful practices, fraud,
                 and mismanagement related to
             departmental or Insular Area programs
                 and operations. You can report
                allegations to us in several ways.


By Internet:       www.doioig.gov

By Phone:          24-Hour Toll Free:                800-424-5081
                   Washington Metro Area:            202-208-5300

By Fax:            703-487-5402

By Mail:           U.S. Department of the Interior
                   Office of Inspector General
                   Mail Stop 4428 MIB
                   1849 C Street, NW.
                   Washington, DC 20240