OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

U.S.DEPARTMENT OFTHE INTERIOR 

Recommendation for 

INSPECTION 

Reconsideration of Scope of 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ 

Fee Retention Authority 

Report No.: 2019-ER-012 July 2020 

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.
 

 

 

 

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 SelfDetermination 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 

10 Comptroller General, Matter of Group Director, Fraud Task Force, B-197299 (Mar 3, 1980) (reprinted 1980 WL 17020). 11 For 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 
Region No. of 

Agencies* 

No. of 

Tribes 

Jurisdictional 

Area 

Service Area 

(acres) 

Section 413 Fees 

Collected†

Region 1: 

Alaska 

2 228 Alaska 424,491,520 

FY 16: None 

FY 17: None 

Total: None 

Region 2: 

Eastern 

3 27 

Maine 

Florida 

Louisiana 

Mississippi 

Alabama 

South Carolina 

North Carolina 

Massachusetts 

New York 

Connecticut 

Rhode Island 

460,980 

(held in trust) 

102,677 

(restricted 

lands) FY 16: None 

FY 17: None 

Total: None 

Region 3: 

Eastern 

Oklahoma 

5 17 

Eastern 

Oklahoma Unknown 

FY 16: $16,563.98 

FY 17: $17,428.96 

Total: $33,992.94 

Region 4: 

Great 

Plains 

12 16 

North Dakota 

South Dakota 

Nebraska 

6 million 

FY 16: $991,184.92 

FY 17: $637,519.58 

Total: $1,628,704.50 

Region 5: 

Midwest 4 36 

Iowa 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Wisconsin 

4.6 million 

FY 16: None 

FY 17: None 

Total: None 

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. 

13 
No. of No. of Jurisdictional Service Area Section 413 Fees 

Region Agencies* Tribes Area (acres) Collected†

Region 6: Navajo 5 Navajo Nation Navajo Nation 

500,000 

(commercial 

timber) 

4.8 million 

(woodland) 

16.2 million 

(trust lands) 

FY 16: $12,954.16 

FY 17: $10,609.77 

Total: $23,563.93 

Region 7: 

Northwest 15 46 

Washington, 

Oregon, Idaho, 

Montana, 

Southeast Alaska 

Unknown 

FY 16: $87,045.29 

FY 17: $94,226.91 

Total: $181,272.20 

Region 8: 

Pacific 4 104 California Unknown 

FY 16: $183,793.52 

FY 17: $125,743.28 

Total: $309,536.80 

Region 9: 

Rocky 

Mountain 

7 8 Wyoming 

Montana 

6.5 million 

FY 16: $357,331.94 

FY 17: $351,691.57 

Total: $709,023.51 

Region 10: 

Southern 

Plains 

5 24 

Oklahoma 

Kansas 

Unknown 

FY 16: $120,259.21 

FY 17: $105,993.18 

Total: $226,252.39 

Region 11: 

Southwest 

9 24 

New Mexico 

Colorado 

Texas 

4.9 million 

FY 16: $1,275.00 

FY 17: $15,000.00 

Total: $16,275.00 

Region 12: 

Western 

13 55 

Arizona 

Nevada 

Utah 

Unknown 

FY 16: $127,771.02 

FY 17: $134,493.74 

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 
Recommendations Status Action Required 

Refer recommendations to 

1, 2 Unresolved the Assistant Secretary for 

Policy, Management and 

Budget for resolution. 

Attachment 6: Status of Recommendations 

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