a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Committees

July 2006 INDIAN ISSUES

BIA’s Efforts to 

Impose Time Frames 

and Collect Better 

Data Should Improve 

the Processing of Land 

in Trust Applications 

GAO-06-781
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

July 2006

INDIAN ISSUES

BIA’s Efforts to Impose Time Frames and 

Collect Better Data Should Improve the 

Processing of Land in Trust Applications 

Highlights of GAO-06-781, a report to 

congressional committees 

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 Recommends

GAO is making a number of

recommendations to improve the 

timeliness and transparency of the

land in trust process and to ensure 

that BIA has accurate and reliable 

data in the land in trust database. 

In commenting on the draft report, 

Interior agreed with our findings 

and recommendations. 

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. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-781.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Robin M. 

Nazzaro at (202) 512-3841 or 

nazzaror@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 5

Background 8

BIA Generally Followed the Regulations for Taking Land in Trust, 

and These Regulations Provide BIA with Wide Discretion 15

Many Land in Trust Applications Have Not Been Processed in a 

Timely Manner 20

Citing Taxes and Jurisdictional Issues, State and Local Governments 

Opposed Applications in Fiscal Year 2005 26

BIA’s Land in Trust Database Is Incomplete and Inaccurate, and BIA 

is Planning to Redesign It 34

Conclusions 36

Recommendations for Executive Action 37

Agency Comments 38

Appendixes

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 39

Appendix II: BIA’s Process for Placing Land in Trust 43

Appendix III: Processing Times for 87 Land in Trust Applications with 

Decisions in Fiscal Year 2005 45

Appendix IV: Processing Times for 28 Off-Reservation Land in Trust 

Applications Awaiting Consideration by BIA Central 

Office 50

Appendix V: Processing Times for 34 Appealed Land in Trust Decisions 

Awaiting Resolution by a BIA Regional Director 52

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of the Interior 54

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 56

Tables Table 1: Analysis of the Eight Criteria BIA Considers in Making Its 

Decision for On-Reservation Land in Trust Applications 18

Table 2: Processing Times for Land in Trust Applications with 

Decisions in Fiscal Year 2005 by BIA Region 23

Table 3: Applications with State or Local Government Opposition 

Prior to BIA’s Decision in Fiscal Year 2005 27

Table 4: Number of Appeals Pending, by Region, as of September 

30, 2005 29
Contents

Page ii GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

Table 5: Administrative Appeals of BIA Land in Trust Decisions 

Awaiting Resolution by the IBIA as of September 30, 

2005 30

Table 6: Representatives of Tribes and Bands Interviewed By 

GAO 41

Figures Figure 1: BIA Regions in the Continental United States and the 

Number of Tribes They Serve 11

Figure 2: Processing Times for Land in Trust Applications with 

Decisions in Fiscal Year 2005 22

Abbreviations

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs

IBIA Department of the Interior’s Board of Indian Appeals

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

July 28, 2006 Letr

The Honorable Conrad Burns

Chairman

The Honorable Byron L. Dorgan

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Charles H. Taylor

Chairman

The Honorable Norman D. Dicks

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

In 1980, the Department of the Interior (Interior) established a regulatory 

process intended to provide a uniform approach for taking land in trust.1

 

Trust status means that the federal government holds title to the land in 

trust for tribes or individual Indians. Land taken in trust is no longer 

subject to state and local property taxes and zoning ordinances. Many 

Indians believe that having their land placed in trust status is fundamental 

to safeguarding it against future loss and ensuring their sovereignty. While 

some state and local governments support the federal government’s taking 

additional land in trust for tribes or individual Indians, others strongly 

oppose it because of concerns about the impacts on their tax base and 

jurisdictional control. Further, the growth of Indian gaming, its impacts on 

local communities, and the possibility that newly acquired land taken in 

trust could be used for gaming have led to heightened concerns about 

Indian land acquisitions by some members of the public and some state and 

local governments. 

Taking land in trust can be mandated by Congress through legislation or at 

the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior. Under the regulations, tribes 

or individual Indians who purchase or own property on which they pay 

property taxes can submit a written request to the Secretary of the Interior 

to have the land taken in trust. If approved, the ownership status of the 

1

25 C.F.R. pt. 151.
Page 2 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

property would be converted from taxable status to nontaxable Indian trust 

status. For requests made by tribes or individual Indians under Interior’s 

discretionary authority, the regulations establish criteria that the Secretary 

of the Interior must consider in evaluating whether to approve or deny the 

request. The criteria differ slightly for requests involving land located 

within or contiguous to an existing Indian reservation—referred to as onreservation acquisitions—and land located outside of and not contiguous 

to an existing Indian reservation—referred to as off-reservation 

acquisitions. The on-reservation criteria require that the Secretary 

consider, among other things, the impact on the state and its political 

subdivisions resulting from removing the land from the tax rolls and 

jurisdictional problems and potential conflicts surrounding land use that 

could arise.2

 As part of the process, state and local governments must be 

notified of a request and allowed 30 days to provide written comments on 

the potential impacts of regulatory jurisdiction, real property taxes, and 

special assessments. For off-reservation requests, the regulations also 

require the Secretary to, among other things, give greater scrutiny to the 

tribe’s justification of anticipated benefits from the acquisition as the 

distance away from the reservation increases and give greater weight to 

concerns raised by state and local governments.3

The Secretary of the Interior has delegated to the Assistant Secretary for 

Indian Affairs, primarily through the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the 

day-to-day responsibility for processing, reviewing, and deciding on 

applications to take land in trust. Written applications are submitted to BIA 

regional offices and local agency offices across the country.4

 In most cases, 

the decision maker for on-reservation applications is the superintendent of 

the local agency office. For off-reservation applications, the decision maker 

is the applicable BIA regional director. However, under Interior’s policy, the 

Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs is to review all off-reservation 

applications and provide input before the regional director issues a 

decision. On- and off-reservation applications are generally processed by a 

combination of BIA realty staff at BIA’s Central Office in Washington, D.C., 

a BIA regional office, and a local agency office. Decisions by BIA 

superintendents and regional directors are not Interior’s final position until 

2

25 C.F.R. §151.10.

3

25 C.F.R. §151.11.

4

Tribes and individual Indians can not apply to have land taken in trust in the state of Alaska, 

except for the Metlakatla Indian Community of the Annette Island Reserve or its members.
Page 3 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

the administrative appeals process has been exhausted. Decisions may be 

appealed to the applicable BIA regional director or to Interior’s Board of 

Indian Appeals (IBIA), depending on who the decision maker was.5

Ultimately, disputes over taking land in trust may be litigated in federal 

court.

To be able to provide agencywide data on the processing of land in trust 

applications, BIA created a land in trust database in the summer of 2004. 

Each BIA office is responsible for entering key dates and information about 

the processing of their land in trust applications, such as the date 

comments were requested and received from state and local governments 

and the date of BIA’s decision. By the end of fiscal year 2005, BIA officials 

had entered information on over 1,000 applications into the database. The 

applications cover tracts of land that are less than an acre to tracts that are 

thousands of acres, located in both rural and urban areas. The database 

shows most of the applications are pending. However, the information in 

the database is not complete or accurate enough to use in describing the 

status or condition of applications overall. Therefore, to provide such a 

description for this report, we primarily relied upon applications with 

decisions in fiscal year 2005, as we were able to verify the accuracy and 

completeness of these applications by reviewing the actual documents in 

select BIA offices across the country. In this manner we were able to 

ensure that we had the complete population for applications with decisions 

in fiscal year 2005. In fiscal year 2005, BIA superintendents and regional 

directors issued decisions on 87 applications covering more than 5,800 

acres for 31 tribes or their members in 12 states. Since 1934, the total 

acreage held in trust by the federal government for the benefit of tribes and 

their members has increased from about 49 million to about 54 million. 

The fiscal year 2006 House Appropriations Committee Report for Interior’s 

appropriation bill directed GAO to study BIA’s procedures and practices in 

implementing the land in trust regulations.6

 In response to this direction 

and subsequent discussions with congressional offices, 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 

5

25 C.F.R. pt. 2.

6

H.R. Rep. No. 109-80, at 68 (2005).
Page 4 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

addressed in BIA’s decision-making process. In addition, we are providing 

information on the problems we encountered with the data BIA collects on 

the processing of land in trust applications. We also agreed to review the 

Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management’s process for 

issuing allotments of land to individual Indians out of the public domain. 

We will report on that issue separately because it involves a different 

agency and different legislative authority. 

In conducting our work, we reviewed applicable laws, regulations, and land 

in trust applications. We reviewed applications and interviewed BIA realty 

staff at six regional offices—Eastern, Midwest, Northwest, Pacific, 

Southern Plains, and Southwest—and eight agency offices—Blackfeet 

(Browning, Montana), Chickasaw (Ada, Oklahoma), Great Lakes (Ashland, 

Wisconsin), Horton (Horton, Kansas), Minnesota (Bemidji, Minnesota), 

Siletz (Siletz, Oregon), Warm Springs (Warm Springs, Oregon), and Wind 

River (Fort Washakie, Wyoming). We visited all of the BIA offices with 10 or 

more land in trust applications decided in fiscal year 2005. From the offices 

we visited, we collected 67 of the 87 discretionary nongaming land in trust 

applications decided in fiscal year 2005, or 77 percent. BIA staff from the 

locations we did not visit made copies of an additional 18 applications and 

mailed them to us. We obtained the remaining two applications from the 

IBIA. We analyzed these applications in the following ways:

• To determine how BIA processed land in trust applications, we reviewed 

the 87 applications with decisions in fiscal year 2005, and we compared 

how the applications were processed with the requirements in the 

regulations. 

• 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 120 business days, or about 6 months, the 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. We also interviewed BIA officials and tribal representatives 

involved in the process to obtain their views on the time taken for 

processing applications. 
Page 5 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

• To determine whether state and local governments had any concerns 

about land in trust applications, we analyzed the content of comments 

made by these governments for the 87 applications with decisions in 

fiscal year 2005. We also reviewed the issues raised by state and local 

governments in all 45 appeals pending as of September 30, 2005—34 

appeals pending before BIA regional directors and 11 appeals pending 

before the IBIA. In addition, we obtained the perspectives of 

representatives of the National Governors Association and the National 

Association of Counties. 

• To determine the accuracy and reliability of BIA’s land in trust database, 

we compared the information in the database with other data sources: 

spreadsheets used by a number of the BIA offices we visited to track 

land in trust applications, BIA realty reports prepared under the 

Government Performance and Results Act, and BIA annual acreage 

reports. We also discussed the development of the current database and 

the proposed redesign of the database with staff in the Office of the 

Chief Information Officer within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 

Indian Affairs.

A more detailed description of our objectives, scope and methodology can 

be found in appendix I. We performed our work between August 2005 and 

June 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards.

Results in Brief BIA generally followed its regulations for processing land in trust 

applications. In processing these applications, BIA realty staff notified and 

obtained comments from affected state and local governments, ensured 

that required environmental reviews were performed, and obtained title 

reviews from Interior’s Office of the Solicitor. After reaching its decision, 

BIA normally provided a decision letter to the applicant and the affected 

state and local governments documenting BIA’s consideration of the 

applicable criteria in the regulations. Decision letters also included an 

explanation of the appeals process. Generally all of the 87 applications with 

decisions in fiscal year 2005 were approved, except for 1 application that 

was denied based on failure to meet the criteria and 6 applications that 

were closed by BIA because the applications were incomplete. While BIA 

realty staff generally followed the necessary procedural steps, the criteria 

in the regulations provide BIA’s decision makers with wide discretion in 

deciding to take land in trust. Most of the criteria are not specific and do 

not offer clear guidelines for what constitutes an unacceptable result. For 
Page 6 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

example, one criterion requires BIA to consider the impact of lost tax 

revenues on state and local governments. However, there is no guidance on 

how to evaluate lost tax revenue, such as comparing it with a county’s total 

budget or evaluating its impact on particular tax-based services. In 

addition, there is no threshold for what might constitute an unacceptable 

level of lost tax revenue—an amount that might lead BIA to deny an 

application. BIA is considering revisions to the regulations that states that 

applications will generally be approved “...unless the record shows clear 

and demonstrable evidence that the trust acquisition will result in 

significant negative impact to the environment or to the local government.” 

These revisions would make BIA’s decision-making process more 

transparent. While we found that BIA procedurally followed the regulations 

for the 87 applications with decisions in fiscal year 2005, there was an issue 

that is not specifically addressed in the regulations that raised a concern at 

one office. We found that one BIA agency office did not document its 

decision-making process, including the consideration of the criteria in the 

regulations, despite BIA’s policy to do so.

While BIA’s current regulations do not set a specific time frame for making 

an initial decision on an application, BIA is considering revisions to the 

regulations that would impose a time frame of 120-business days, or about 

6 months, for making a decision for both on- and off-reservation 

applications once an application is complete. In addition, the existing 

regulations on appeals of a decision set forth a 60-day time frame for 

resolution “...after all time for pleadings (including all extensions granted) 

has expired.” Based on these time frames, it appears that many land in 

trust applications have not been decided in a timely manner. First, for the 

87 applications with decisions in fiscal year 2005, the median time from the 

start of the application until BIA officials made a decision was 1.2 years. 

The processing times ranged from a low of 58 days to a high of almost 19 

years. At least 10 of the 87 applications with decisions in fiscal year 2005 

were decided within the time frame under consideration; however, a 

number of applications took an exceedingly long time because of delays on 

the part of either the applicant or BIA. Second, 28 complete off-reservation 

applications had been pending review at the Central Office an average of 

1.4 years from the date of the draft decision to September 30, 2005. Twentytwo of these 28 off-reservation applications had not been processed in a 

timely manner, as of September 30, 2005, based on the time frames under 

consideration. Third, 34 appealed decisions awaiting resolution by a BIA 

regional director have been pending an average of 2.8 years from the time 

of the decision to September 30, 2005.
Page 7 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

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, mainly citing concerns about lost tax 

revenues and jurisdictional issues. For example, the state of Kansas raised 

questions about who would be responsible for providing road maintenance 

and fire protection if the land was taken in trust. BIA generally reviewed 

the comments it received on pending applications and considered them in 

its decision-making process. Ten of the 12 applications with some initial 

opposition were approved by BIA in its decision in fiscal year 2005; the 

remaining 2 applications were closed by BIA because the applications were 

incomplete. State and local governments have also opposed some 

applications through administrative appeals, again primarily citing 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 appealed 

decisions from fiscal year 2005. Although we found little opposition to the 

applications with decisions in fiscal year 2005, some state and local 

government representatives we contacted regarding land in trust issues 

said that (1) they did not have access to sufficient information about the 

land in trust applications to provide comments and (2) the 30-day comment 

period was not sufficient time in which to provide comments. For example, 

according to some state and local governments, BIA’s notifications on 

pending applications provide no information about the tribe’s proposed use 

of the land once it is approved for trust status. Interior is considering 

revisions to the regulations that would provide state and local governments 

with additional information about the applications and 60 and 90 days, 

respectively, to provide comments for on- and off-reservation applications.

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. As a result, the data are of 

questionable value to Interior and BIA management; we did not rely on 

these data. The database was hastily developed and deployed agencywide 

in the summer of 2004 without defining and documenting user 

requirements and clearly defining data fields. In a June 2005 memo, almost 

a year after the system was put in place, BIA’s Deputy Director for Trust 

Services noted that only 4 of the possible 11 regions had entered any data 

into the database. The memo directed each BIA regional and agency office 

to enter all of its land in trust applications into the database within 5 days. 

By the end of fiscal year 2005, the database contained information on more 

than 1,000 applications, but we still found that not all of the applications 
Page 8 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

had been entered into the database. Furthermore, the status of an 

application, as either approved, denied, or pending, was frequently 

incorrect in the database. While some of these errors were simply data 

entry errors, others were the result of systemic problems, such as the lack 

of common definitions for key terms. 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 these shortcomings and initiated an effort to 

reevaluate and redesign the database, as necessary.

We are recommending that the Secretary of the Interior direct BIA to (1) 

reinforce the requirement that all decisions be fully documented; (2) adopt 

revisions to the regulations under consideration to include specific time 

frames for the decision-making process, as well as guidelines for providing 

state and local governments with more information and a longer period of 

time to provide meaningful comments on the applications; and (3) 

implement appropriate internal controls to help ensure the accuracy and 

reliability of the data in the land in trust database. In commenting on a draft 

of this report, Interior agreed with our findings, conclusions, and 

recommendations. Interior commented that BIA is working to address the 

recommendations and that a corrective action plan will be developed and 

implemented in response to the report. Specifically, BIA is taking steps to 

finalize the regulations under consideration. After the regulations are 

completed, BIA will develop a handbook to ensure consistent application 

of the regulations. The handbook will also include specific internal control 

procedures to ensure all decisions are properly and completely 

documented, as well as entered into the land in trust database accurately 

and in a timely manner. See appendix VI for Interior’s written comments.

Background Since the early days of American colonization, Indian lands have 

diminished significantly, in large part because of federal policy. By 1886, 

Indian lands had been reduced to about 140 million acres, largely on 

reservations west of the Mississippi River. Federal policy encouraging 

assimilation in the late 1800s and early 1900s further reduced Indian lands 

by two-thirds, to about 49 million acres by 1934. However, in 1934, the 

enactment of the Indian Reorganization Act changed the government’s 

Indian policy to encourage tribal self-governance.7

 Section 5 of the act 

7

Act of June 18, 1934, ch. 576, 48 Stat. 984 (1934) (codified as amended at 25 U.S.C. §§ 461-

479).
Page 9 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

provided the Secretary of the Interior the discretionary authority to take 

land in trust on behalf of federally recognized tribes or their members. 

Specifically, section 5 states:

The Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to acquire through 

purchase, relinquishment, gift, exchange, or assignment, any interest in lands, water rights 

or surface rights to lands, within or without existing reservations ... for the purpose of 

providing land for the Indians. ... Title to any lands or rights acquired pursuant to this Act 

shall be taken in the name of the United States in trust for the Indian tribe or individual 

Indian for which the land is acquired, and such lands or rights shall be exempt from State 

and local taxation. [Emphasis added]

Since 1934, the total acreage held in trust by the federal government for the 

benefit of tribes and their members has increased from about 49 million to 

about 54 million acres.8

Within Interior, BIA is responsible for the administration and management 

of all land held in trust by the United States and for serving the 561 

federally recognized tribes and about 1.9 million individual Indians and 

Alaska Natives.9

 The Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs has primary 

responsibility for BIA while the BIA Director oversees its day-to-day 

operations. BIA has over 9,600 staff and an annual budget of about $2.39 

billion. BIA’s responsibilities include the administration of education 

systems, social services, and natural resource management, among other 

things. BIA is organized by 12 regions with 58 underlying agencies located 

throughout the country. One region covers the state of Alaska, and the

8

The 5-million acre difference between these two figures represents the net change of Indian 

land in trust from 1934 to 1997. While this report discusses Indian applicants seeking to have 

land converted to trust status, Indian applicants can also seek to have land already in trust 

status converted to fee status (i.e., land that property taxes must be paid on) and tribes and 

individual Indians can also lose trust lands through a variety of means, including probate 

and foreclosure. These two processes result in land “coming into trust” (referred to as 

acquisitions) and land “going out of trust” (referred to as disposals). The regulations 

governing taking land out of trust are in 25 C.F.R. pt. 152. For example, for the calendar year 

ending December 31, 1997, BIA reported acquiring about 360,000 acres and disposing of 

about 260,000 acres, for a net increase in tribal and individual Indian trust acreage of about 

100,000 acres.

9

70 Fed. Reg. 71194 (Nov. 25, 2005).
Page 10 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

remaining 11 cover the continental United States.10 (See fig. 1.) A regional 

director is in charge of each regional office and a superintendent is in 

charge of each agency office. 

10The regulations do not cover the acquisition of land in trust status in the state of Alaska, 

except for acquisitions for the Metlakatla Indian Community of the Annette Island Reserve 

or its members. The Metlakatla Indian Community is served by BIA’s Northwest Region. 

Excluding the Metlakatla Indian Community, there are 224 federally recognized Indian 

entities in the state of Alaska. Therefore, 337 of the 561 federally recognized tribes are 

eligible to submit land in trust applications.
Page 11 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

Figure 1: BIA Regions in the Continental United States and the Number of Tribes They Serve 

Note: BIA’s Western Region serves the Hopi Indian Reservation, which is located within the 

boundaries of the Navajo Region. Also, one of the tribes served by BIA’s Northwest Region—the 

Metlakatla Indian Community of the Annette Island Reserve—is located in Alaska.

( ) 

Northwest 

(45) 

Midwest 

(30) 

Eastern 

(25) 

Eastern Oklahoma 

(19) 

Southern Plains

(24)

Navajo 

(1) 

Pacific 

(103) 

Southwest 

(24) 

Rocky 

Mountain 

(8) 

Great Plains

(16)

Western 

(42) 

Sources: BIA and GAO. 

Regions

Represents number of tribes
Page 12 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

The Office of Trust Services, which includes BIA’s Central Office realty 

staff, provides overall guidance for the land in trust program as one of its 

many responsibilities.11 Real estate services staff, about 390 total with an 

annual budget near $41 million, are located at BIA offices across the 

country and are responsible for processing land in trust applications, as 

well as other functions, including property management, land leasing and 

title activity, and lease compliance. Real estate services staff are under the 

line authority of regional directors and agency superintendents. 

In 1980, Interior established a regulatory process intended to provide a 

uniform approach for taking land in trust.12 For on-reservation applications 

under the Secretary’s discretionary authority, the deciding official must 

consider 

• the statutory authority to take land into trust;

• the need for the land; 

• the purpose of acquiring the land; 

• for individual Indians, the amount of land already held in trust and the 

individual’s need for assistance in handling business matters; 

• the implications for state and local governments of removing land from 

the tax rolls;

• the potential jurisdictional concerns of state and local governments; 

• BIA’s ability to discharge its duties on the newly acquired land; and 

• environmental compliance, particularly with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

11Other responsibilities of the Office of Trust Services include managing real estate services, 

probate, and environmental cultural resource compliance.

1225 C.F.R. pt. 151. The regulations were first proposed in 1978, see 43 Fed. Reg. 32311 (July 

26, 1978). The final rule was published on Sept. 18, 1980 and it became effective on Oct. 20, 

1980, see 45 Fed. Reg. 62034 (Sept. 18, 1980). The regulations, which were originally 

designated as 25 C.F.R. pt. 120a, were redesignated in 1982 as 25 C.F.R. pt. 151. The 

regulations were significantly revised in 1995.
Page 13 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

For off-reservation applications under the Secretary’s discretionary 

authority, BIA must also place greater weight on the concerns of state and 

local governments as the distance of the land from the tribe’s reservation 

increases and review a business plan if the land is to be acquired for 

business purposes. Once these steps have been completed, BIA provides a 

decision to the applicant and affected parties. Several additional steps 

follow, including publication of the decision in the Federal Register or a 

local newspaper, and possible administrative appeals and litigation.

In 1988, about 8 years after the regulations for taking land in trust were 

issued, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act was enacted.13 The act provided 

the statutory basis for the operation and regulation of certain gaming 

activities on Indian lands. It generally prohibits gaming activities on Indian 

trust lands acquired by the Secretary after October 17, 1988, the date the 

act was signed into law. However, the act does provide several exceptions 

that allow gaming on lands acquired in trust after its enactment.14 For fiscal 

year 2005, gaming revenues from Indian gaming facilities totaled $22.6 

billion.

On applications for land in trust, applicants must declare the anticipated 

use of the property, particularly whether the property will be for gaming or 

nongaming purposes. Applications to take land in trust for gaming 

purposes are handled by the Office of Indian Gaming Management within 

the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs. In September 2005, 

Interior’s Office of the Inspector General reported on the processing of 

applications for land in trust for gaming purposes.15 The Inspector General 

reported that while the review and approval process for gaming 

applications was “sufficient,” the process took an average of 17 months—

or about 1.4 years—from the time BIA received the application until its 

final action. Furthermore, the Inspector General reported 10 instances 

where tribes had converted lands acquired for nongaming purposes to 

gaming without first getting the necessary approvals pursuant to the Indian 

Gaming Regulatory Act. Interior subsequently determined that five of these 

13Pub. L. No. 100-497, 102 Stat. 2467 (1988).

14GAO, Indian Gaming Regulatory Act: Land Acquired for Gaming After the Act’s 

Passage, GAO/RCED-00-11R (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 1, 1999).

15U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Inspector General, Process Used to Assess 

Applications to Take Land into Trust for Gaming Purposes, E-EV-BIA-0063-2003 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 1, 2005).
Page 14 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

conversions were eligible for gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory 

Act, one was not, and four were still under review at the time of the 

Inspector General’s report. The gaming facility on the one ineligible 

conversion was later closed.

Our report focuses on discretionary nongaming land in trust applications, 

which fall into three categories—on-reservation, off-reservation, and 

“gaming related” applications. The gaming related category was added in 

2001, and it refers to applications involving support facilities for gaming 

establishments, such as parking lots and maintenance buildings, but not the 

actual gaming activity itself. By directive of the Assistant Secretary for 

Indian Affairs, each category of applications is processed slightly 

differently or by a different office. In most cases, the decision maker for onreservation applications is the superintendent of the local BIA agency 

office. For the remaining on-reservation applications and for the offreservation applications, the decision maker is the applicable BIA regional 

director. Off-reservation applications are processed using the criteria in 25 

C.F.R. §151.11 and the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs is to review the 

draft decision and supporting materials and provide input before the 

regional director issues a decision. On- and off-reservation applications are 

generally processed by a combination of BIA realty staff at BIA’s Central 

Office in Washington, D.C.; a BIA regional office; or a local BIA agency 

office. Finally, gaming-related applications are processed by the Office of 

Indian Gaming Management in Washington, D.C., and the decision maker is 

the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs.

During the land in trust process, administrative appeals must be filed 

within 30 days of receipt by the applicant of the notice of the decision, and 

parties have at least 30 days to file judicial challenges after the decision is 

published in the Federal Register or a local newspaper. Administrative 

appeals can be filed with the applicable BIA regional director or the IBIA, 

depending on who the BIA deciding official was. First, if a superintendent 

was the deciding official, parties can appeal the decision to a regional 

director. The regional director then reviews the application’s administrative 

record and any other available information and renders a ruling. The 

regulations governing appeals state that a regional director must make a 

ruling within 60 days after all times for pleadings, including extensions, 

have expired.16 The regional director’s ruling can then be further appealed 

to the IBIA, the administrative review body at Interior. The IBIA’s ruling is 

1625 C.F.R. § 2.19.
Page 15 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

the final position for Interior. Second, if a regional director was the 

decision maker, parties may appeal the decision to the IBIA.17 Once a 

decision is final for Interior, it is published in the Federal Register or a local 

newspaper and parties have at least 30 days to file judicial challenges to the 

decision. Appendix II provides an overview of the land in trust process.

Interior is considering revisions to the land in trust regulations, among a 

number of other possible regulation changes.18 Preliminary revisions under 

consideration were distributed to tribes on December 27, 2005. Changes 

are under consideration throughout the regulations, including the 

institution of a trust acquisition request form, new criteria for considering 

on- and off-reservation acquisitions, extended state and local government 

comment periods, and time frames for issuing a decision. Although Interior 

held tribal consultations in February and March to discuss draft 

regulations, the land in trust regulations were not part of the meetings’ 

agendas. Interior set the date of March 31, 2006, for tribes to submit 

comments on the proposed changes. According to the Associate Deputy 

Secretary, Interior is planning to hold consultation meetings in the last 

quarter of calendar year 2006, followed by publishing a proposed rule in the 

Federal Register for public comment.

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. 

Apart from the regulations, we found one BIA agency office did not 

properly document its decision-making process, including the 

consideration of the criteria in the regulations. Furthermore, we found that 

two separate agreements between groups of tribes and two BIA regional 

offices, designed to expedite the processing of certain applications, have 

17The Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs can also be the decision maker. In such a case, 

the decision is final for Interior and may not be appealed to the IBIA, but could be appealed 

in Federal court.

18Interior is also considering revisions to regulations regarding probate/life estates (25 C.F.R. 

pts. 15, 18, and 179, and 43 C.F.R. pt. 4), land records and title documents (25 C.F.R. pt. 150), 

leasing (25 C.F.R. pt. 162), grazing (25 C.F.R. pt. 166), administrative accounting appeals 

(new regulations), whereabouts unknown (new regulations), and fees (new regulations).
Page 16 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

raised concerns and were under investigation by Interior’s Office of 

Inspector General at the time of our review.

BIA Generally Followed the 

Regulations for Taking Land 

in Trust

BIA generally followed its regulations for the 87 land in trust applications 

with decisions in fiscal year 2005. Specifically, BIA

• notified affected state and local governments and provided a 30-day 

comment period for them to submit information on potential tax and 

jurisdictional impacts;

• obtained a preliminary title opinion from Interior’s Office of the 

Solicitor;

• usually issued a decision letter to the applicant and interested parties 

based on an evaluation of the criteria in the regulations, including 

determining compliance with NEPA requirements,

• provided 30 days for the applicant or interested parties to appeal the 

decision and an explanation of the appeals process in its decision letter; 

and,

• published a notice of its decision in the Federal Register or local 

newspaper providing at least 30 days for interested parties to seek 

judicial review.

Of these 87 decisions, 80 were approvals, and 7 were denials. The 

Superintendent of the Wewoka Agency, Eastern Oklahoma Region, denied 

one application because the applicant failed to meet the criteria. The 

Superintendent of the Horton Agency, Southern Plains Region, officially 

withdrew six applications, in effect denying them, because the tribe did not 

submit additional necessary information for several years.

Applicants and state and local governments can file appeals and judicial 

challenges if they believe that BIA failed to properly follow the regulations. 

Eight of the 87 decisions in fiscal year 2005 had been appealed as of 

September 30, 2005. Three of the appeals were not filed within the required 

30-day appeal period; therefore, they were dismissed as untimely. The 

remaining five appeals were pending as of September 30, 2005. The 

appellants generally asserted that BIA did not adequately consider tax and 

jurisdictional impacts. While these most recent appeals were pending at the 

end of the fiscal year 2005, some other appeals of decisions from fiscal year 
Page 17 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

2004 are illustrative in demonstrating how the appeal process works. For 

example, the local government of Union Township, in the state of Michigan, 

appealed three land in trust applications to the Midwest Regional Director, 

asserting that BIA had not addressed, among other things, the township’s 

jurisdictional and land use concerns in its decision. The township argued 

that the proposed acquisition would create “an island (of trust land) in the 

middle of the township in a prime commercial corridor” that might be 

subject to different zoning and building regulations and that this might 

create “serious difficulties for rational land use planning.” BIA’s decision 

stated only that primary law enforcement and fire protection would be 

provided by the tribe and that the tribal council has good relations with 

local planning officials and made no mention of the township’s concerns. 

The Midwest Regional Director agreed that the decision had not adequately 

addressed the issues raised by Union Township and returned the 

applications to the Superintendent of the Michigan Agency to better 

address those concerns. In addition, the Midwest Regional Director 

determined that the Michigan Agency had not provided sufficient 

information on environmental compliance. 

Criteria in the Regulations 

Provide BIA Wide 

Discretion Because They 

Are Not Specific and Do Not 

Include Guidelines for How 

BIA Should Apply Them

In general, we found that the criteria in the regulations provide BIA with 

wide discretion in deciding to take land in trust, primarily because they are 

not specific, and BIA has not provided clear guidelines for applying them. 

For example, one criterion requires BIA to consider the impact of lost tax 

revenues on state and local governments. However, the criterion does not 

indicate a threshold for what might constitute an unacceptable level of lost 

tax revenue and, therefore, a denial of an application. Furthermore, BIA 

does not provide guidance on how to evaluate lost tax revenue, such as 

comparing lost revenue with a county’s total budget or evaluating the lost 

revenue’s impact on particular tax-based services, such as police and fire 

services. In addition, the criterion does not require deciding officials to 

consider the cumulative impact of tax losses resulting from multiple 

parcels taken in trust over time—a practice some state and local 

governments would like to see instituted.19 Table 1 shows our analysis of 

the criteria. 

19Land may also be converted from trust to nontrust status though a variety of means, such 

as at the owner’s request or through the sale of the property to a non-Indian. Any 

comprehensive analysis of the cumulative tax impact should consider this aspect.
Page 18 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

Table 1: Analysis of the Eight Criteria BIA Considers in Making Its Decision for On-Reservation Land in Trust Applications

Source: GAO analysis of the criteria in 25 C.F.R. § 151.10.

a

Under BIA’s current regulations, restricted status refers to land held in title by an individual Indian or 

tribe that can only be alienated or encumbered by the owner with the approval of the Secretary of the 

Interior.

b

Under BIA’s regulation revisions under consideration, fee (or “fee simple”) land is defined as meaning 

that the owner has unconditional power of disposition over the land.

In addition, the criteria are not pass/fail questions and, therefore, the 

responses to the criteria do not necessarily result in an approval or denial 

of an application. For example, should BIA decide that an application has 

“failed” to meet one or more of the criteria, the BIA deciding official still 

has discretionary authority under the regulations to approve the 

application. However, we found no instances in which an official decided 

Criteria GAO’s analysis of the criteria

The existence of statutory authority for the acquisition and 

any limitations contained in such authority.

Criterion is clear; BIA must have statutory authority for taking the land in 

trust. In most cases, the statutory authority is the general authority in 

Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act.

The need of the individual Indian or the tribe for additional 

land.

For tribal applications, 25 C.F.R. §151.3(a)(3) provides some additional 

clarification on need and purpose by stating that Secretary must determine 

that the acquisition is necessary to facilitate tribal self-determination, 

economic development, or Indian housing. However, the regulations do not 

define or provide guidance on the type of need to be considered and how 

the level of need should be evaluated.

The purposes for which the land will be used. Of the three categories mentioned in 25 C.F.R. §151.3(a)(3) for tribal 

applications, Indian housing is clear, but self-determination and economic 

development are broad categories and open to interpretation. The 

regulations do not provide any guidance on how the criterion applies to 

applications from individual Indians. 

If the land is to be acquired for an individual Indian, the 

amount of trust or restricted land already owned by or for 

that individual and the degree to which the individual needs 

assistance in handling business matters.a

No guidance in the regulations on how the amount of land owned by an 

individual Indian should be weighted against their need for assistance in 

handling their business matters.

If the land to be acquired is in unrestricted fee status,b the 

impact on the state and its political subdivisions resulting 

from the removal of the land from the tax rolls.

No guidance in the regulations on what constitutes an acceptable level of 

tax loss or how to evaluate the tax loss for approving an application.

Jurisdictional problems and potential conflicts of land use 

that may arise. 

No guidance in the regulations on what types of jurisdictional and land use 

concerns might warrant denial of the application. 

If the land to be acquired is in fee status, whether BIA is 

equipped to discharge the additional responsibilities 

resulting from the acquisition of the land in trust. 

No guidance in the regulations on how BIA should evaluate its ability to 

discharge additional duties. 

The extent to which the applicant has provided information 

that allows the Secretary to comply with environmental 

requirements, particularly NEPA.

No guidance provided on the amount or type of information needed by BIA 

to make the required environmental determinations.
Page 19 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

that an applicant did not meet one or more criteria but still approved the 

application. 

Revisions to the regulations under consideration make it clearer that, 

because it is difficult to develop specific thresholds for most criteria, BIA 

intends to assume that most on-reservation applications will eventually 

receive approval unless a major failing is evident, such as an environmental 

hazard on a property that would leave the federal government liable to 

environmental clean-up costs. Conversely, the draft changes make it more 

difficult to approve off-reservation applications.20 

One BIA Office Did Not 

Properly Document Its 

Decisions and Two Other 

Offices Have Entered Into 

Agreements with Tribes 

That Have Raised Concerns

While we found that BIA procedurally followed the regulations for the 87 

applications with decisions in fiscal year 2005, there were two areas not 

specifically addressed in the regulations that raised concerns.

• First, BIA’s Fort Peck Agency, in the Rocky Mountain Region, did not 

document its decision-making process for two applications decided in 

fiscal year 2005, including the consideration of the criteria in the 

regulations. Although not in the regulations, BIA policy calls for offices 

to include an analysis of each of the criteria in their decision letters for 

approving or denying applications. This policy stems from a 1999 IBIA 

statement that failure to provide an analysis of the criteria to interested 

parties would potentially lead to the IBIA vacating future decisions.21 

BIA realty staff at the Fort Peck Agency were unable to provide us with 

documentation showing they considered the criteria for two 

applications approved in fiscal year 2005. The Fort Peck Agency 

reported it also has some pending applications as of the end of fiscal 

year 2005. By not documenting its consideration of the applicable 

20The current regulations include eight criteria for on-reservation applications and 

additional criteria for off-reservation applications. The revisions to the regulations under 

consideration include four criteria for on-reservation applications and eight criteria for offreservation applications. In addition, the revisions state that BIA will approve onreservation applications if (1) the trust acquisition does not create a significant additional 

administrative burden on Interior and (2) it facilitates either tribal self-determination, 

economic development, Indian housing, land consolidation, cultural resources protection, 

or natural resources protection, unless the record shows by clear and demonstrable 

evidence that the trust acquisition will result in significant negative impact to the 

environment or to the local government.

21Town of Ignacio, Colorado v. Albuquerque Area Director, BIA, 34 IBIA 37, 42 (1999).
Page 20 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

criteria, the Fort Peck Agency is not fully disclosing its rationale for its 

decisions and is, therefore, making the process less transparent.

• Two separate agreements between groups of tribes and two BIA 

regional offices designed to expedite the processing of certain 

applications were under investigation by Interior’s Office of Inspector 

General at the time of our review. Specifically, agreements signed by 

tribes and BIA regional offices in the Pacific and Midwest regions 

created land in trust consortiums. In both cases, consortium tribes 

agreed to use a portion of their budget to pay for additional staff 

positions at BIA dedicated to processing consortium members’ land in 

trust applications.22 According to staff with the Inspector General’s 

office, the Pacific Region’s land in trust consortium agreement was not 

reviewed or approved by Interior’s Office of the Solicitor before BIA 

entered into it. The staff further stated that the Midwest Region’s 

agreement, created several years after the Pacific Region’s agreement, 

did undergo review and approval by the Solicitor’s Office. Interior’s 

Office of Inspector General was conducting an investigation of these 

consortium arrangements to determine whether the tribes’ allocation of 

money to fund the consortiums was legally authorized and whether BIA 

was favoring land in trust applications from those tribes.

Many Land in Trust 

Applications Have Not 

Been Processed in a 

Timely Manner

While BIA’s current regulations do not set a specific time frame for making 

an initial decision on an application, BIA is considering revisions to the 

regulations that would impose a time frame of 120-business days, or about 

6 months, for making a decision for both on- and off-reservation 

applications once an application is complete. According to our analysis of 

three categories of land in trust applications, BIA did not decide most 

applications within the proposed time frames the agency is now 

considering, or within existing time frames for appeals. First, for the 87 

applications with decisions in fiscal year 2005, the median length of time 

from submission of an application to a BIA decision was a little over 1 year. 

Second, the 28 complete off-reservation applications currently awaiting 

review have been at the BIA Central Office for an average of 1.4 years, as of 

the end of fiscal year 2005. Finally, for applications on appeal, current 

federal regulations call for regional directors to rule on an appeal within 60 

22These tribes use a portion of their Tribal Priority Allocations from BIA to fund these 

positions. These are federal funds provided through BIA to the tribes, which the tribes use, 

in part, to fund staff positions at BIA.
Page 21 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

days after all time for pleadings has expired. For the 34 appealed 

applications awaiting a BIA decision that we reviewed, the average time 

pending from the BIA decision to the end of fiscal year 2005 was almost 3 

years.

Some Applications with 

Decisions in Fiscal Year 

2005 Were Decided in a 

Timely Manner, While 

Others Took an Exceedingly 

Long Time

While the current land in trust regulations do not provide a time frame for 

BIA’s review of land in trust applications, BIA is considering revisions to 

the regulations that would establish a time frame of 120 business days, or 

about 6 months, for BIA to issue a decision once a complete application has 

been assembled. For the 87 applications with decisions in fiscal year 2005, 

the median length of time from submission of an application to a BIA 

decision was 1.2 years, twice as long as the proposed time frame.23 Using 

the time frame under consideration as a guide, and allowing 30 days for 

state and local governments to provide comments, we determined that at 

least 10 of the 87 applications we reviewed were processed in a timely 

manner. Additional applications may have been decided in a timely manner, 

but the files we reviewed did not clearly document the date when an 

application was complete. Figure 2 shows the amount of time BIA took to 

process applications with decisions in fiscal year 2005. 

23Median length of time is used in this instance due to a substantially wide range of 

processing times that skew the average. For the 87 applications with decisions in fiscal year 

2005, 86 were on-reservation applications, and 1 was an off-reservation application. The offreservation application was cleared by BIA Central Office on September 20, 2002.
Page 22 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

Figure 2: Processing Times for Land in Trust Applications with Decisions in Fiscal 

Year 2005

Table 2 shows the processing times for the 87 applications we reviewed by 

region. As the table shows, the shortest processing time—58 days—

occurred in the Midwest Region, while the longest processing time—

almost 19 years—occurred in the Pacific Region. (App. III provides 

additional details on the 87 land in trust applications with decisions in 

fiscal year 2005.)

Amount of time

Source: GAO analysis of BIA land in trust applications decided in fiscal year 2005.

0 5 10 15 20 25

Number of applications

>15 years and 

<19 years

>10 years and

<15 years

>5 years and

<10 years

>4 years and

<5 years

>3 years and 

<4 years

>2 years and

<3 years

>1.5 years and

<2 years

>1 year and

<1.5 years

>7 months and

<1 year

<7 months (10) 

(2)

(7) 

(7)

(8) 

(6) 

(3) 

(1) 

(25)

(18) 
Page 23 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

Table 2: Processing Times for Land in Trust Applications with Decisions in Fiscal 

Year 2005 by BIA Region

Source: GAO analysis of land in trust applications with decisions in fiscal year 2005.

According to our analysis of BIA files, processing times for applications 

with decisions in fiscal year 2005 were lengthened by inaction on the part 

of either the applicant or BIA. For example, according to BIA files, the 

Pacific Region application that took almost 19 years to process was 

submitted in 1986 by an individual tribal member to place 5.42 acres of land 

in trust. BIA found that the application lacked required documents and, 

therefore, could not process the application until it received these 

documents. The applicant did not provide the necessary documents until 

1991. While the application was deemed complete in 1991, according to our 

file review, the regional office did not issue a notice to interested parties of 

the proposed trust acquisition until 2002. However, in the same year, the 

BIA Pacific Regional Director ordered processing stopped on the 

application because the applicant’s tribal affiliation was uncertain. BIA and 

the applicant worked to resolve this issue, and BIA approved the 

application on February 25, 2005, almost 19 years after its submission. 

While the BIA file stated clearly that processing on the file was halted 

initially due to inaction on the part of the applicant, it did not provide an 

explanation regarding why the application was not acted upon by the BIA 

from 1991 to 2002. In other cases processed at the Horton Agency Office in 

Kansas, our file review showed several applications were closed by the 

agency in 2005 because of inaction on the part of the tribe; one of these 

applications had been submitted in 1991. BIA officials also noted that 

Processing time in years

Region

Number of 

applications 

processed

Shortest 

application 

processing 

time

Longest 

application 

processing 

time

Median 

processing 

time

Eastern Oklahoma 14 0.5 2.8 1.0

Eastern 7 1.2 1.5 1.2

Midwest 16 0.2 12.8 3.4

Northwest 11 0.4 8.2 6.1

Pacific 9 0.6 18.7 1.5

Rocky Mountain 20 0.6 1.3 1.0

Southern Plains 10 1.3 14.0 3.5

Total 87 0.2 18.7 1.2
Page 24 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

access to the Internet would increase their ability to process land in trust 

applications in a timely manner.24 

Off-Reservation 

Applications Have Not Been 

Processed in a Timely 

Manner

Off-reservation applications awaiting review by BIA’s Central Office have 

not been processed in a timely manner. Again, BIA is considering imposing 

a 120-business day time frame, or about 6 months, for issuing a decision on 

off-reservation applications once an application is complete. According to 

BIA Central Office staff, there was nearly a 2-year period between 

December 2003 and November 2005 when no off-reservation land in trust 

applications were cleared by the Assistant Secretary.25 On average, the 28 

off-reservation applications we reviewed had been pending in the Central 

Office for 1.4 years by the end of fiscal year 2005—almost three times 

longer than the 6-month time frame under consideration. Using the time 

frame under consideration as a guide, and allowing 30 days for state and 

local comments, we found that at least 22 of the 28 off-reservation 

applications pending at the Central Office were not processed in a timely 

manner. The most recent application forwarded to the Central Office had 

been pending for about 1 month, while the oldest application had been 

pending for over 3 years. 

This analysis is based solely on the time the applications were pending at 

the BIA Central Office and does not include the time the applications spent 

at a BIA agency or regional office before they were forwarded to the 

Central Office. In total, from the time of their initial submission at a BIA 

agency or regional office until the end of fiscal year 2005, these 

applications had been pending an average of 4.6 years. These applications 

originated from 17 tribes covering 1,832 acres of land in 11 states, primarily 

in BIA’s Northwest and Southern Plains Regions. (See app. IV for more 

detailed information on these 28 applications.)

24On December 5, 2001, the effect of accumulated information technology security 

weaknesses resulted in a Temporary Restraining Order that required that Interior 

immediately disconnect from the Internet all information technology systems that house or 

provide access to individual trust data. While most of Interior had regained Internet access 

by the time of our review, BIA had not. The Temporary Restraining Order was vacated by the 

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on July 11, 2006. See Cobell v. Kempthorne, No. 05-5388 

(D.C. Cir. July 11, 2006).

25From November 2005 until June 2006, two applications were cleared by the Central Office.
Page 25 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

Turnover in the position of the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs may 

have contributed to the length of time involved in processing offreservation applications. The current Central Office review process was 

instituted in February 2002. According to the February 2002 memorandum 

instituting this process, “[e]very effort will be made to complete the 

overview within one week.” The Assistant Secretary who instituted this 

process held the position for about 1-1/2 years before retiring in December 

2002. Since then, the position of Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs has 

been held by three different people: an acting Assistant Secretary; a 

permanent Assistant Secretary; and, since February 2005, an Associate 

Deputy Secretary at Interior has served as the Acting Assistant Secretary. 

It Appears that Appeals 

Have Not Been Resolved in 

a Timely Manner by BIA 

Regional Directors 

Federal regulations require regional directors to “render written decisions 

in all cases appealed to them within 60 days after all time for pleadings 

(including all extensions granted) have expired.”26 According to our review 

of 34 appealed decisions awaiting resolution by a BIA regional director, the 

average time pending from the time of the decision to the end of fiscal year 

2005 was 2.8 years. While our file review did not allow us to determine at 

what point “all time for pleadings” had expired in each case, it appears, 

based on the lengthy time period, that none of the 34 appealed decisions 

awaiting a regional director’s ruling were resolved in a timely manner. 

However, in cases in which a ruling has not been rendered by a regional 

director within the required time frame, the regulations provide a process 

to appeal the inaction of the regional director to the IBIA.27 Under these 

circumstances, the IBIA has stated that it could use its authority to order a 

Regional Director to issue a final decision on a tribe’s trust acquisition 

request.28 Typically, however, the IBIA has instead ordered the regional 

director to provide a status report on the requested action. If satisfied that 

the matter is being addressed or has already been resolved by the regional 

director, the IBIA has dismissed the appeal.29 Most of the appealed 

decisions we reviewed originated from BIA’s Southern Plains Region. (App. 

V provides additional details on these applications.)

2625 C.F.R § 2.19.

2725 C.F.R. § 2.8.

28Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah v. Western Regional Director, BIA, 38 IBIA 128, 129 (2002).

29Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah v. Western Regional Director, BIA, 40 IBIA 163, 164 (2004); 

Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah v. Western Regional Director, BIA, 40 IBIA 141, 142 (2004).
Page 26 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

When applications are not processed in a timely manner because of delays 

by BIA or the applicant, information in the applications can become 

outdated, particularly environmental assessments, comments from state 

and local governments, and tax data. When this happens, BIA must devote 

additional resources to obtain updated information and reprocess the 

applications—an inefficient and time-consuming process for BIA, Indian 

applicants, and state and local governments. The applicants also bear a 

direct financial cost because they continue to pay property taxes on the 

land while BIA is processing their applications. The applicant may face 

additional financial burdens due to processing delays, such as the 

opportunity costs associated with delayed economic development 

activities.

Citing Taxes and 

Jurisdictional Issues, 

State and Local 

Governments Opposed 

Applications in Fiscal 

Year 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, mainly citing concerns about lost tax 

revenues and jurisdictional issues. State and local governments have also 

opposed some applications through administrative appeals, again primarily 

citing 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. 

For example, the state of Kansas opposed the Kickapoo tribe’s application 

for placing about 75 acres in trust because trust status would cause a loss 

of tax revenue, which amounted to $172 for the county in 2000. Despite the 

tax loss, Kansas said its local government would still bear the cost of 

continuing to provide services, such as road maintenance and fire 

protection. The county of jurisdiction—Brown County, Kansas—opposed 

trust status, saying “...further erosion of the real estate base is always a 

concern.” The tribe responded in a letter to BIA in 2001, saying it disagreed 
Page 27 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

with the state’s arguments. In April 2005, the Superintendent of BIA’s 

Horton Agency in the Southern Plains Region closed the application 

because the tribe did not respond to BIA’s requests for additional 

information for several years. 

BIA generally reviewed the comments it received on pending applications 

and considered them in its decision-making process. Table 3 describes the 

Indian tribe, the acreage, proposed use of land to be taken in trust, and the 

tax losses state and local governments expressed concern about prior to 

BIA’s decision on 12 applications.

Table 3: Applications with State or Local Government Opposition Prior to BIA’s Decision in Fiscal Year 2005 

Current year dollars

Applicant County and state Acreage and proposed use

Date 

comments 

provided

Annual tax 

amount

Approved and not appealed

Confederated Tribes of the 

Colville Reservation, 

Washington

Okanogan County, 

Washington

40 acres for undeveloped land Nov. 2004 $221 

Misccosukee Tribe of Indians, 

Florida

Miami-Dade County, Florida 180 acres to increase land base Feb. 2004 7,958

Upper Sioux Community, 

Minnesota

Yellow Medicine County, 

Minnesota

2 acres for housing and governmental 

or institutional use

June 2002 104

Approved but subsequently appealed 

Picayune Rancheria of the 

Chukchansi Indiansa

Madera County, California 111.7 acres for parking lot, road, and 

undeveloped land

Dec. 2001 $11,743

Prairie Band of Potawatomi 

Nation, Kansasb

Jackson County, Kansas 40 acres for agriculture Oct. 2001 63

Prairie Band of Potawatomi 

Nation, Kansasb

Jackson County, Kansas 80 acres for agriculture Sept. 2000 161

Prairie Band of Potawatomi 

Nation, Kansasa

Jackson County, Kansas 160 acres for agriculture Dec. 2002 312

Prairie Band of Potawatomi 

Nation, Kansasb

Jackson County, Kansas 160 acres for agriculture Oct. 2001 909

Santa Ynez Band of 

Chumash Mission 

Indians of the Santa Ynez 

Reservation, Californiaa, c

Santa Barbara County, 

California

6.9 acres for a cultural center, museum, 

park, and retail building

June 2001 43,240

Stockbridge Munsee 

Community, Wisconsina

Shawano County, Wisconsin 404 acres for government facilities, 

housing, forestry and restoration of land 

base

Mar. 2003 11,387
Page 28 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

Source: GAO analysis of land in trust applications with decisions in fiscal year 2005.

Note: The county, the state, or both entities were opposed. Also, two additional land in trust 

applications from the Ho-Chunk Nation involving land in Jackson County, Wisconsin, had initial 

opposition, but when the BIA Superintendent made a decision he believed there were no jurisdictional 

and potential conflicts of the land use that would arise. These two applications are not included in the 

table because the opposition was eliminated prior to BIA’s decision.

a

The appeals of four decisions were awaiting resolution as of September 30, 2005. Two of the 

decisions were appealed to BIA regional directors, and the other two decisions on applications by the 

Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians of California and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash 

Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation were appealed to the IBIA.

b

BIA officials continued to process three applications after Jackson County appealed the decisions of 

the Horton Superintendent. An agency official said BIA continued to process the approved applications 

because the county incorrectly filed the appeals with the Horton Agency rather than the Southern 

Plains Region.

c

The decision on the application by the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa 

Ynez Reservation was appealed by citizen groups. The IBIA ruled that the groups did not have 

standing to appeal the decision. Santa Ynez Valley Concerned Citizens v. Pacific Regional Director, 

BIA, 42 IBIA 189 (2006). 

As table 3 shows, while most lost annual tax revenue was less than $1,000, 

Santa Barbara County, California, opposed the Santa Ynez Band of 

Chumash Mission Indians’ application for 6.9 acres to be placed in trust 

because of a tax loss of about $43,000 per year. Before the decision, the 

county held a public hearing in June 2004 on the environmental assessment 

for the proposed trust acquisition. More than 50 speakers commented, 

mostly in opposition to the application. BIA and county officials held a joint 

meeting to discuss the issues the county raised. BIA ultimately approved 

the trust application in January 2005, and the county did not oppose the 

decision at that time. However, several citizen groups appealed the 

decision, and in August 2005 the county filed a motion to intervene or 

alternatively file an amicus brief. The IBIA dismissed the motion for

Denied (closed due to inactivity)

Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of 

the Kickapoo Reservation in 

Kansas

Brown County, Kansas 160 acres for agriculture May 2001 $793

Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of 

the Kickapoo Reservation in 

Kansas

Brown County, Kansas 75.6 acres for agriculture May 2001 172

(Continued From Previous Page)

Current year dollars

Applicant County and state Acreage and proposed use

Date 

comments 

provided

Annual tax 

amount
Page 29 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

intervention as untimely and dismissed the citizens’ appeals for lack of 

jurisdiction in February 2006.30

State or Local Governments 

Have Also Cited Primarily 

Tax and Jurisdictional 

Issues When Opposing BIA 

Land in Trust Decisions 

through Administrative 

Appeals 

As of September 30, 2005, 45 appeals were pending either before BIA 

regional directors or the IBIA. All but two appeals involved decisions 

approving land in trust applications, and all but three appeals were filed by 

state or local governments.31 These appeals echo the tax, jurisdiction, and 

other types of issues that were raised before BIA’s decision. Most of the 

pending appeals were made by a state or local government that frequently 

or routinely appeal BIA’s decisions on land in trust applications. BIA’s 

Southern Plains Region had the highest number of appeals that were 

pending as of September 30, 2005. (See table 4.) The appeals in the 

Southern Plains Region generally involve the state of Kansas and Jackson 

County, Kansas.

Table 4: Number of Appeals Pending, by Region, as of September 30, 2005

Source: GAO analysis of appeals pending at the end of fiscal year 2005.

Note: The Eastern, Great Plains, Navajo, Rocky Mountain, and Southwest Regions did not have 

appeals pending as of September 30, 2005.

3042 IBIA 189, 205 (2006). 

31The Kickapoo Tribe of Indians appealed to the IBIA the Southern Plains Regional 

Director’s decision to consider their application discretionary rather than mandatory. One 

individual appealed to the IBIA when the Eastern Oklahoma Regional Director denied his 

application. In addition to these two appeals that were not generated by state or local 

governments, a third appeal was filed by citizen groups regarding an approval by the Pacific 

Regional Director.

BIA region

Appeals awaiting 

rulings by BIA 

regional directors

Appeals awaiting 

rulings by the IBIA Total

Eastern Oklahoma 0 1 1

Midwest 6 4a 10

Northwest 0 1 1

Pacific 0 2b 2

Southern Plains 28c 1 29

Western 0 2 2

Total 34 11 45
Page 30 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

a

In March 2006, the IBIA affirmed the Midwest Regional Director’s decision to take the land in trust in 

three of these cases. Cass County, Minnesota v. Midwest Regional Director, BIA, 42 IBIA 243 (2006). 

The IBIA consolidated five appeals on three decisions into one ruling. 

b

In February 2006, the IBIA dismissed the appeal of citizen groups seeking a review of the Pacific 

Regional Director’s decision to take land in trust in one case. 42 IBIA 189 (2006).

c

The appeals in the Southern Plains Region generally involve the state of Kansas and Jackson County, 

Kansas.

See appendix V for detailed information on the 34 appeals awaiting 

resolution by a BIA regional director and table 5 for detailed information on 

the 11 appeals awaiting resolution by the IBIA.

Table 5: Administrative Appeals of BIA Land in Trust Decisions Awaiting Resolution by the IBIA as of September 30, 2005

Source: GAO analysis of appeals of BIA land in trust decisions.

Original land in trust applicant Appellant(s) Acreage and proposed use

IBIA docket 

number(s)

Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin Sauk County, Wisconsin 5 acres for continued use as housing 

and community center 

IBIA 05-053-A

Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the 

Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas

Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo 

Reservation in Kansas

74.81 acres for agriculture and 

economic development

IBIA 04-098-A

Individual member of the 

Seminole Nation of Oklahoma

The applicant, an individual Indian 139.73 acres; use not indicated IBIA 06-002-A

Minnesota Chippewa Tribe 

(Leech Lake Band), Minnesotaa

Cass County and City of Cass Lake, 

Minnesota

0.016 acres for housing IBIA 04-120-A

IBIA 04-128-A 

Minnesota Chippewa Tribe 

(Leech Lake Band), Minnesotaa

Cass County, Minnesota 0.96 acres for an office for 

reservation women’s services

IBIA 04-121-A

Minnesota Chippewa Tribe 

(Leech Lake Band), Minnesotaa

Cass County and City of Cass Lake, 

Minnesota

0.02 acres for a tribal health office IBIA 04-122-A

IBIA 04-125-A

Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona Arizona State Land Department 436.18 acres for a government 

offices, health services, education 

complex, and a park

IBIA 03-067-A

Picayune Rancheria of 

Chukchansi Indians of California

Madera County Board of Supervisors and the 

Madera County Tax Assessor, California

111.7 acres for parking lot, road, and 

undeveloped land

IBIA 05-029-A

Santa Ynez Band of Chumash 

Mission Indians of the Santa 

Ynez Reservation, Californiab

Santa Ynez Concerned Citizens, 

Preservation of Los Olivos, Preservation of 

Santa Ynez, and Women’s Environmental 

Watch of the Santa Ynez Valley

6.9 acres for a cultural center, 

museum, park and retail building

IBIA 05-50-A

Swinomish Indians of the 

Swinomish Reservation, 

Washington

Skagit County, Washington 350 acres for a marina and mixed 

use commercial activity

IBIA 02-102-A

Yavapai-Apache Nation of the 

Camp Verde Indian Reservation, 

Arizona

Arizona State Land Department, Arizona 

Department of Water Resources, Salt River 

Project, and Eric Eberhard, Arizona

1,168.9 acres for agriculture, 

housing, and commercial use

IBIA 04-133-A

IBIA 04-136-A

IBIA 04-134-A

IBIA 04-135-A
Page 31 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

a

The decisions on the three applications by the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe (Leech Lake Band) resulted 

in five appeals, which were consolidated by the IBIA. The IBIA affirmed the Midwest Regional 

Director’s approval of the applications. 42 IBIA 243 (2006).

b

The decision on the application by the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa 

Ynez Reservation was appealed by citizen groups. The IBIA ruled that the groups did not have 

standing to appeal the decision. 42 IBIA 189 (2006). 

The following example illustrates the types of concerns raised on appeal. In 

2002, the state of Kansas appealed a decision by the Horton Agency 

Superintendent to allow 7.85 acres in trust on the Sac & Fox reservation. 

The state argued that BIA’s decision (1) reduces the tax rolls by $492; (2) 

violates the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, since states surrendered 

many powers to the federal government but retained residual sovereignty; 

and (3) violates the Act for Admission of Kansas into the United States 

because it would compel the state to relinquish its sovereign jurisdiction 

over the land.32 The tribe stated that (1) Brown County, the recipient of the 

$492 per year in taxes, did not file an appeal and the amount is 

insubstantial; (2) the Regional Director, like the IBIA, lacked jurisdiction to 

declare federal statutes unconstitutional, and this issue has been addressed 

in several other appeals to the IBIA; and (3) Kansas had accepted 

admission into the United States on the condition that the federal 

government retained its power to regulate Indian affairs; therefore, BIA did 

not infringe on the state’s sovereignty. The Southern Plains Regional 

Director was still considering the appeal as of June 8, 2006.

Similar arguments about loss of tax revenues and jurisdictional issues have 

been made in appeals before the IBIA. For example, Cass County and the 

City of Cass Lake, Minnesota, appealed three decisions of the Minnesota 

Agency Superintendent to place 1.28 acres of land of the Minnesota 

Chippewa Tribe (Leech Lake Band) in trust in 2001. The land was to be 

used for residential housing, women’s services programs, and a tribal 

health office. The county and the city said the loss of the land would have a 

32Federal courts have regularly upheld Interior’s implementation of the land in trust process 

in the face of constitutional challenges. For instance, the First Circuit recently rejected 

the contention that land in trust authority under the Indian Reorganization Act is an 

unconstitutional delegation of congressional power, that it violates state sovereignty under 

the Tenth Amendment, the Enclave Clause, and the Admissions Clause, and that it exceeds 

congressional authority under the Indian Commerce Clause. Carcieri v. Norton, 423 F.3d 45 

(1st Cir. 2005). The Eighth Circuit reached a contrary conclusion in a 1995 decision which 

found that the Indian Reorganization Act land in trust provision was an unconstitutional 

delegation, but that decision was vacated by the Supreme Court. South Dakota v. United 

States Dep’t of the Interior, 69 F.3d 878, 881-85 (8th Cir. 1995), vacated by 519 U.S. 919 (1996). 

Ten years later, the Eighth Circuit explicitly rejected the rationale of its 1995 decision. South 

Dakota v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 423 F.3d 790 (8th Cir. 2005).
Page 32 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

negative impact on the tax rolls and that the land might not be within the 

reservation boundaries; consequently, the applications would be subject to 

additional criteria. When the matter was appealed to the Regional Director, 

he concluded that the tax loss of about $5,000 annually was not significant 

and that the tribe’s services to the entire community, including non-Indians, 

reduced the financial burden on local governments.33 

State and Local 

Governments Want More 

Information about 

Applications as Early as 

Possible and More Time to 

Comment

Some state and local government officials want more information about 

applications early in the process, and they want more time to comment. In 

a July 2005 paper, the National Governors Association stated that any new 

regulations should include, among other things, a requirement that states 

and local governments be able to review tribal submissions and evidence, 

just as tribes are able to review state submissions.34 The governors also 

said that language in the regulations should ensure that states have the 

right to provide data challenging assertions made in the proposals to take 

land in trust. According to some state and county officials, the current 

process does not work well in providing them with information and an 

opportunity to comment. During a meeting with staff of various state 

governors, arranged by the National Governors Association, an attorney 

with the South Dakota Office of the Attorney General told us that while the 

governor’s office receives notification of land in trust applications, the state 

does not have access to a tribe’s application except through a Freedom of 

Information Act request, which often takes too long. He said BIA does not 

consistently allow for extensions in these cases. In a meeting with county 

officials arranged by the National Association of Counties, a representative 

from a New York county said that BIA’s process was unfamiliar, so the 

state, the two counties involved, and other local governments paid for extra 

legal, economic, and environmental consultants. However, he said it was 

not possible for these government entities to respond adequately to the 

initial BIA notice within 30 days. BIA provided an extension of time for the 

county to respond.

33These three appeals were pending as of September 30, 2005. In March 2006, the IBIA ruled 

that the Regional Director did not abuse his discretion in arriving at this conclusion. Further, 

the IBIA concluded that the Regional Director’s position that these were on-reservation 

acquisitions was a sufficient response. 42 IBIA 243 (2006). 

34National Governors Association, The Role of States, the Federal Government, and Indian 

Tribal Governments with Respect to Indian Gaming and Taxation Issues, EDC-06 

(Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2005).
Page 33 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

Similarly, some state and local governments raised the following access 

and timing issues in comments on the applications that we reviewed: 

• In 1999, Cass County told the Minnesota Agency Superintendent that 

further documentation on the application from the Minnesota Chippewa 

Tribe (Leech Lake Band) was needed for the county to provide specific 

comments other than the amount of taxes. The county asked for more 

documents under the Freedom of Information Act and for an additional 

60 days to comment following receipt of the documents. BIA provided 

the documents and more time.

• In June 2001, Santa Barbara County, California, responded to a notice of 

an application that, without information regarding how the Santa Ynez 

Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation 

intended to regulate activity on trust land, the county could only 

speculate that jurisdictional and land use conflicts would arise. 

• In December 2002, an assistant legal counsel to the governor of Kansas 

wrote to the BIA representative in the Horton, Kansas, field office that 

to effectively represent the state, it was necessary to have each tribe’s 

resolution plan that accompanies the initial application for land to be 

taken into trust.

• Also, in a January 2005 letter, the General Counsel to the Governor of 

Minnesota told BIA that it could not fully comment on an application by 

the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe (Grand Portage Band) without an 

opportunity to review the proposed purpose for conversion and 

potential uses. 

In the revisions to the regulations, Interior is considering providing some 

additional information to state and local governments and lengthening the 

period for comments. One provision under consideration would require 

that a tribe complete a form called a “request for trust acquisition.” BIA 

would provide the form, along with a description of the land and the 

proposed use of the land, to the state and local governments having 

jurisdiction. Another provision would lengthen the time period for state 

and local governments to comment after BIA provided notice of an 

application. The time periods would change from 30 days to 60 days for onreservation applications and to 90 days for off-reservation applications.
Page 34 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

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.35 As a result, the data are of 

questionable value to Interior and BIA management, and we did not rely on 

it. 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. Staff 

with Interior’s Office of Information Development said a contractor 

developed the database in about a month to address the information needs 

of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs in the summer of 2004. 

In a June 2005 memo, almost a year after the system was put in place, BIA’s 

Deputy Director for Trust Services noted that only 4 of the possible 11 

regions had entered any data into the database, and the memo directed 

each BIA regional and agency office to enter all of its land in trust 

applications into the database within 5 days. By the end of fiscal year 2005, 

the database contained more than 1,000 applications. 

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. Specifically, we found 

the following issues: 

• Not all of the applications had been entered into the database. Twentynine of the 87 applications with decisions in fiscal year 2005, or 33 

percent, were not in the database. About half of these applications not in 

the database, 13, were from the Eastern Oklahoma Region’s Chickasaw 

Agency. No one at the office had access to the database when we 

initially inquired and, therefore, they could not enter information. Also 9 

applications at the Pacific Region were not in the database, and no one 

there had access when we inquired. We also found instances at the 

Midwest and Southwest Regions where some pending applications had 

not been entered into the database. The high rate of applications that 

had not been entered into the database is one of the factors that led us 

to conclude that database information was unreliable.

• Status of applications was frequently incorrect. During the course of 

our review, we found that 30 of the 41 applications identified as denied 

35Interior refers to the database as the Fee to Trust Electronic Checklist.
Page 35 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

in the database were miscoded, an error rate of almost 75 percent. Most 

of the remaining “denied” applications were applications that were 

closed by realty staff with the Southern Plains Region’s Horton Agency 

because the tribal applicants had not responded for more than a year to 

BIA’s requests for the additional information needed to process the 

applications. The applications were not processed and denied based on 

the criteria in the regulations; rather, they were closed due to inactivity. 

However, as currently designed, there is no category in the database to 

show this type of resolution other than denied. In addition, we found 

that some offices interpreted “approved” differently. For example, two 

agency offices in BIA’s Rocky Mountain Region used an application form 

that required the agency superintendent to approve the application for 

filing and processing. As defined by these offices, some applications 

being processed had been “approved,” but they were actually pending 

applications. Other BIA offices considered an application approved 

when the superintendent actually approved taking the land in trust. 

While some of the problems we encountered with the status of the 

applications in the database were simply data entry errors, others were 

the result of systematic problems, such as the lack of common 

definitions for key terms.

Furthermore, at the time of our review, regional and agency realty staff did 

not use the new database as the primary tool for managing their 

applications. According to BIA regional and agency realty staff, they do not 

use or do not like to use the database because it is cumbersome, slow, and 

does not meet their needs. They continue to use their office-specific 

spreadsheets to manage and track their applications. These office 

spreadsheets were one of the tools we used to try and verify the 

information in the database. However, trying to reconcile the office 

spreadsheets with the database was difficult because the office 

spreadsheets usually identified applications only by parcel name, whereas 

the database identified applications with different unique identification 

numbers by region, agency, and tribe. 

We believe that data need to be accurate, valid, complete, consistent, and 

timely enough to document performance, support decision making, and 

respond to the needs of internal and external stakeholders. According to 

Interior officials, the database has been used to respond to questions about 

the program from various levels of management and from Congress. 

Further, data quality depends on how readily users can access data, aided 

by clear data definitions and user-friendly software. When significant data 

limitations exist, it is important to make stakeholders and Congress aware 
Page 36 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

of the limitations so they can judge the credibility of the data for their use. 

During the course of our review, BIA recognized that the database has 

limitations, and it asked Interior’s Office of Information Development to 

improve the database. In April 2006, the Deputy Director for Information 

Development conducted a 3-day workshop for program managers on BIA’s 

land in trust database. The session served as a basis for making 

improvements and, in May 2006, the office was preparing a plan to (1) 

involve regional and headquarters officials in changing the database, (2) 

better define terms and fields, and (3) increase the number of fields 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.

Conclusions The land in trust regulations were intended to provide a clear, uniform, and 

objective approach for Interior to evaluate land in trust applications. 

However, the regulations provide wide discretion to the decision maker 

because the criteria are not specific, and BIA has not provided clear 

guidelines for applying them. Given the wide discretion that exists and the 

increased scrutiny that the land in trust process has come under with the 

growth of Indian gaming, it is important that the process be as open and 

transparent as possible. Clearly documenting each decision and providing 

that information to state and local governments is a critical component of 

having an open and transparent process. However, contrary to BIA policy 

and admonishments from the IBIA, we found one BIA office that did not 

document its consideration of the criteria in the regulations. While this 

office only accounted for 2 of the 87 decisions in fiscal year 2005, it omitted 

documentation of the most important part of the process. State and local 

governments need information on how BIA reaches its decisions to 

effectively execute their role in the process, including holding the federal 

government accountable for its decisions and having adequate information 

to decide whether or not to appeal a decision if it believes that the federal 

government did not adequately follow the process.

A lack of specific time frames for BIA to make decisions on land in trust 

applications results in a lack of predictability about the process and 

contributes to the perception, on the part of Indian applicants and state and 

local governments, that the process is not open and transparent. Lengthy 

application processing times can place a burden on BIA, Indian applicants, 

and state and local governments. If applications are not processed in a 

timely manner because of delays by BIA or the applicant, information in the 

applications can become outdated, particularly environmental 
Page 37 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

assessments, comments from state and local governments, and tax data. 

When this happens, BIA must devote additional resources to obtaining 

updated information and reprocessing the applications—an inefficient and 

time-consuming process for BIA, Indian applicants, and state and local 

governments. To the extent that BIA is the cause of some of these delays, 

imposing specific time frames on the decision-making process should 

improve the processing of the land in trust applications. In addition, some 

state and local governments have been unable to adequately participate in 

the process because they did not have enough information on the pending 

applications or the necessary length of time to provide substantive 

comments. Interior is considering changes to the regulations that would 

address these issues.

Finally, federal agencies need data that are accurate, valid, complete, 

consistent, and timely enough to document performance, support decision 

making, and respond to the needs of internal and external stakeholders. 

During the course of our review, BIA recognized the shortcomings with the 

data in its land in trust database and initiated a process to improve the 

database. A properly designed and implemented database with accurate 

data would provide important information to (1) BIA to help it better 

manage the land in trust process and (2) other stakeholders, particularly 

Congress, to help carry out oversight of 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.
Page 38 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

Agency Comments Interior’s Associate Deputy Secretary commented on a draft of this report 

in a letter dated July 12, 2006 (see app. VI). In general, Interior agreed with 

our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. The Associate Deputy 

Secretary commented that BIA is working to address the recommendations 

and that a corrective action plan will be developed and implemented in 

response to the report. Specifically, BIA is taking steps to finalize the 

regulations under consideration. After the regulations are completed, BIA 

will develop a handbook to ensure consistent application of the 

regulations. The handbook will also include specific internal control 

procedures to ensure all decisions are properly and completely 

documented, as well as entered into the land in trust database accurately 

and in a timely manner.

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 

committees, the Secretary of the Interior, the Assistant Secretary for Indian 

Affairs, BIA regional and agency offices we visited, and other interested 

parties. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In 

addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me 

at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are 

listed in appendix VII.

Robin M. Nazzaro

Director, Natural Resources and Environment
Page 39 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology AAppenednxidexiIs

The fiscal year 2006 House Appropriations Committee Report for the 

Department of the Interior’s (Interior) appropriation bill directed GAO to 

study the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) procedures and practices in 

implementing the land in trust regulations.1

 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. 

For all of the objectives, we reviewed applicable laws, regulations, and land 

in trust applications. We reviewed applications at six BIA regional offices—

Eastern, Midwest, Northwest, Pacific, Southern Plains, and Southwest—

and eight BIA agency offices—Blackfeet (Browning, Montana), Chickasaw 

(Ada, Oklahoma), Great Lakes (Ashland, Wisconsin), Horton (Horton, 

Kansas), Minnesota (Bemidji, Minnesota), Siletz (Siletz, Oregon), Warm 

Springs (Warm Springs, Oregon), and Wind River (Fort Washakie, 

Wyoming). We selected those offices because our general intent was to visit 

all BIA offices with 10 or more land in trust applications described as 

approved or denied in BIA’s land in trust database. However, interviews 

with realty officials at these offices and at the Western, Great Plains, 

Navajo, and Rocky Mountain Regions and our examination of documents 

they provided led us to conclude that the database was frequently 

incomplete and inaccurate. During the course of our work, we found many 

examples of inaccuracies in the database that showed data were missing, 

incorrectly described, or inconsistently reported. Therefore, our scope was 

limited to the groups of applications in which we had greater confidence 

that we had obtained all of the applications. We examined (1) 87 

discretionary nongaming land in trust applications with decisions in fiscal 

year 2005, (2) 28 off-reservation applications awaiting comments from the 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, (3) 34 appealed 

decisions pending before BIA regional directors at the end of fiscal year 

2005, and (4) 11 appealed decisions pending before the Interior Board of 

Indian Appeals (IBIA) at the end of fiscal year 2005. In an effort to collect 

all of the applications in these categories, we relied on interviews with BIA 

realty officials in the relevant offices, examination of their localized 

spreadsheets for tracking applications, and some comparisons with other 

BIA databases. To identify the pending appeals at the IBIA, we relied on 

1

H. R. Rep. No. 109-80, at 68 (2005).
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 40 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

these methods and the selections provided by the Chief Judge and an 

examination of the IBIA’s informal log.

We collected 67 of the 87 discretionary nongaming land in trust 

applications with decisions in fiscal year 2005, or 77 percent, during our 

site visits. From telephone discussions with realty staff, we identified the 

remaining relevant applications at five agencies—Colville (Colville, 

Washington), Fort Peck (Fort Peck, Montana), Michigan (Sault Ste. Marie, 

Michigan), Southern California (Riverside, California), and Puget Sound 

(Everett, Washington). Staff at locations we did not visit made copies of an 

additional 18 applications and mailed them to us. We contacted realty 

officials at the Navajo Region and the Great Plains Region, including its 

agencies—Rosebud (Rosebud, South Dakota), Lower Brule (Lower Brule, 

South Dakota) and Pine Ridge (Pine Ridge, South Dakota) and verified that 

they had no applications with decisions in fiscal year 2005. In addition, we 

obtained applications that were appealed to BIA regional directors and 

pending in fiscal year 2005 based on discussions with realty officials in the 

various field offices and regions and from examining their files. We used a 

similar method to identify and collect applications appealed to the IBIA 

that were pending at the end of fiscal year 2005. Also, we interviewed the 

Chief Judge of the IBIA to identify pending applications; he provided copies 

of relevant applications. In doing so, we obtained information on the two 

remaining applications with BIA decisions in fiscal year 2005.

Besides interviews with BIA and Interior officials, we obtained views from 

various interested parties including representatives of the National 

Governors Association, the National Association of Counties, National 

Congress of American Indians, and several individual tribes. The National 

Governors Association invited their members to meet with us, and they 

hosted a teleconference, which included representatives from 12 states—

Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Kentucky, New Mexico, New 

York, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Washington. 

The National Association of Counties included a panel session with GAO at 

their annual meeting in March 2006. The six participants were from the 

California State Association of Counties; Kitsap County, Washington; 

Madison County, New York; Navajo County, Arizona; Seneca County, New 

York; and Ziebach County, South Dakota. 

For discussions with tribal leaders, we used a nonprobability sample to 

select tribes that submitted applications in recent years to BIA locations we 

visited. We met with representatives of the 13 tribes listed in table 6.
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 41 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

Table 6: Representatives of Tribes and Bands Interviewed By GAO

Source: GAO.

In addition, we obtained Interior’s and Indians’ views on the land in trust 

process by participating in a panel session on the subject at the SelfGovernance Tribes’ Fall Conference in 2005. 

For each of the objectives we took the following specific actions:

• To determine how BIA processed land in trust applications, we reviewed 

the 87 applications with decisions in fiscal year 2005 and compared how 

the applications were processed with the requirements in the 

regulations and departmental guidance. In addition, we interviewed 

Interior’s field solicitors in Minnesota and Oregon to obtain their 

perspectives on how BIA followed procedures during their reviews of 

applications.

• 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. The reported minimum, median, and 

Tribe State BIA region

Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana Montana Rocky Mountain

Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma Oklahoma Eastern Oklahoma

Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin Wisconsin Midwest

Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska Kansas Southern Plains

Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas Kansas Southern Plains

Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau 

Reservation of Wisconsin

Wisconsin Midwest

Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Mille Lacs Band Minnesota Midwest

Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Kansas Kansas Southern Plains

Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska Kansas Southern Plains

St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin Wisconsin Midwest

Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Reservation, Oregon Oregon Northwest

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon Oregon Northwest

Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming Wyoming Rocky Mountain
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 42 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

maximum processing times are for fiscal year 2005 only and might not 

be indicative of other years. For each of the applications with decisions 

in fiscal year 2005, we tried to use the date of the application as the 

initial point to calculate the processing time. For the few applications 

where we could not determine the date of the application, we used 

either the date of the tribal resolution requesting that the land be placed 

in trust or the date BIA notified state and local governments about an 

application. We used the decision date as the end date for calculating the 

processing time of these applications. For off-reservation applications, 

we calculated the time from the date of the draft decision to the end of 

fiscal year 2005. 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. For the appealed decisions, we calculated the time from the 

date of the decision to the end of fiscal year 2005. We also interviewed 

BIA officials and tribal representatives involved in the process to obtain 

their views on the time taken for processing applications. 

• To determine whether state and local governments had concerns, we 

analyzed the content of comments made by these governments for the 

87 applications with decisions in fiscal year 2005 and 45 appeals pending 

at the end of fiscal year 2005. Moreover, we reviewed the National 

Governors Association 2005 position paper on revisions to the 

regulations for processing land in trust, and we obtained draft revisions 

to the regulations from a Counselor to the Assistant Secretary for Indian 

Affairs at Interior.

• As described above, we decided that the BIA database was not reliable 

for our purposes. To determine the accuracy and reliability of the 

database, we compared the information in the database with other data 

sources, including spreadsheets used by a number of the BIA offices we 

visited to track land in trust applications, BIA realty reports under the 

Government Performance and Results Act, and BIA annual acreage 

reports. We also discussed the development of the current database and 

the proposed redesign of the database with staff in the Office of the 

Chief Information Officer within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 

Indian Affairs. 

We performed our work between August 2005 and June 2006 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Page 43 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

Appendix II

BIA’s Process for Placing Land in Trust ApendxiI

Note: This flowchart represents BIA’s land in trust process for on-reservation acquisitions. Offreservation and gaming-related applications follow slightly different processes. The flowchart also 

shows some of the possible scenarios for an appeal and judicial review.

Path of applications without an appeal or judicial review

Possible path of applications with appeal or judicial review

End of the process for approved applications

Source: GAO analysis of BIA Land in Trust Process.

Tribe or individual 

Indian submits land in 

trust application 

BIA notifies affected state and 

local governments of 

application and solicits

comments on tax and 

jurisdictional impacts

BIA posts notification in Federal 

Register or local newspaper of intent to 

take land in trust 

BIA reviews application, 

including environmental 

compliance, title examination, 

and considers criteria for 

placing land in trust

30-day comment period

BIA 

superintendent 

issues

decisiona

30-day appeal period

30-day period for judical review

No appeal

b

No judical review

Applicant and 

BIA official sign 

deed; land 

officially placed 

in trust

No appeal Appeal 

Regional Director 

issues decision

IBIA issues decision 

Uphold Reverse

Reverse

Remandc 

Uphold Remand

Judical review

Federal court issues decision

Uphold Reverse

Appeal
Appendix II

BIA’s Process for Placing Land in Trust

Page 44 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

a

This flowchart assumes that the BIA superintendent is the initial decision maker. The initial decision 

maker can also be the regional director or the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs.

b

In the case of a denial by the superintendent and no appeal, the process would end here.

c

This flowchart assumes all application remands are directed back to the BIA superintendent. 

Remands could also be directed to other decision makers, such as the regional director or Assistant 

Secretary for Indian Affairs.
Page 45 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

Appendix III

Processing Times for 87 Land in Trust 

Applications with Decisions in Fiscal Year 

2005 ApendxiI

Applicant Parcel name Proposed use Acreage

Days between 

application date and 

decision date

Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Fond du 

Lac Band

Zacher Protection of cultural/historical 

sites, hunting, and housing

6.85 58

Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Grand 

Portage Band

Schwebel Water treatment plant 0.03 73

Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Grand 

Portage Band

Kozlowski Water treatment plant 1.70 73

Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Grand 

Portage Band

Hollow Rock Resort Water treatment plant 11.86 98

Muckleshoot Indian Tribe of the 

Muckleshoot Reservation, Washington

Auburn School Tribal school 38.23 130

Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma T080 Chickasaw Nation Division of 

Aging expansion

0.16 186

Confederated Tribes of the Grand 

Ronde Community of Oregon

Eastman-Meyer Forestry, light recreational, and 

cultural

9.99 192

Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma T075 Tribal government offices 0.44 205

Individual member of the Puyallup 

Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation, 

Washington

David Turnipseed Housing 0.20 209

Elk Valley Rancheria, California Elk Valley Rancheria Tribal headquarters 3.64 210

Individual member of the Assiniboine 

and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck 

Indian Reservation, Montana

Helmer Agriculture 800.00 224

Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma T079 Community center n/a 251

Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma T076 Community center 0.61 254

Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma Ben's TV and Dee's Trim 

Shop

Tribal government offices 1.29 283

Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the 

Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana

Powell Homestead, farmland, and 

pasture land

40.00 303

Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma T073 Tribal government offices 4.66 315

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission 

Indians of the Morongo Reservation, 

California

Ahadpour Parcel 1 and 2 Grazing and water source 715.56 327a

Arapaho and Shoshone Tribes of the 

Wind River Reservation, Wyoming

Twitchell Parcel 1 Agriculture, grazing 0.28 357

Arapaho and Shoshone Tribes of the 

Wind River Reservation, Wyoming

Twitchell Parcel 2 Agriculture, grazing 22.20 357

Arapaho and Shoshone Tribes of the 

Wind River Reservation, Wyoming

Twitchell Parcel 3 Agriculture, grazing 8.00 357
Appendix III

Processing Times for 87 Land in Trust 

Applications with Decisions in Fiscal Year 

2005

Page 46 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

Arapaho and Shoshone Tribes of the 

Wind River Reservation, Wyoming

Twitchell Parcel 4 Agriculture, grazing 8.50 357

Arapaho and Shoshone Tribes of the 

Wind River Reservation, Wyoming

Twitchell Parcel 5 Agriculture, grazing 30.00 357

Arapaho and Shoshone Tribes of the 

Wind River Reservation, Wyoming

Twitchell Parcel 6 Agriculture, grazing 15.60 357

Arapaho and Shoshone Tribes of the 

Wind River Reservation, Wyoming

Twitchell Parcel 7 Agriculture, grazing 19.80 357

Arapaho and Shoshone Tribes of the 

Wind River Reservation, Wyoming

Twitchell Parcel 8 Agriculture, grazing 36.43 357

Arapaho and Shoshone Tribes of the 

Wind River Reservation, Wyoming

Twitchell Parcel 9 Agriculture, grazing 10.80 357

Arapaho and Shoshone Tribes of the 

Wind River Reservation, Wyoming

Twitchell Parcel 10 Agriculture, grazing 6.90 357

Arapaho and Shoshone Tribes of the 

Wind River Reservation, Wyoming

Twitchell Parcel 11 Agriculture, grazing 2.00 357

Arapaho and Shoshone Tribes of the 

Wind River Reservation, Wyoming

Twitchell Parcel 12 Agriculture, grazing 2.00 357

Arapaho and Shoshone Tribes of the 

Wind River Reservation, Wyoming

Twitchell Parcel 13 Agriculture, grazing 2.20 357

Arapaho and Shoshone Tribes of the 

Wind River Reservation, Wyoming

Twitchell Parcel 14 Agriculture, grazing 0.70 357

Arapaho and Shoshone Tribes of the 

Wind River Reservation, Wyoming

Twitchell Parcel 15 Agriculture, grazing 23.06 357

Arapaho and Shoshone Tribes of the 

Wind River Reservation, Wyoming

Twitchell Parcel 16 Agriculture, grazing 6.00 357

Arapaho and Shoshone Tribes of the 

Wind River Reservation, Wyoming

Twitchell Parcel 17 Agriculture, grazing 41.80 357

Individual member of the Seminole 

Nation of Oklahoma

King Housing 139.73 361

Stillaguamish Tribe of Washington Barlond-Bank Savers Storing seasonal plants, 

fisheries, and cultural uses

13.84 380

Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma T067 Expansion of chocolate factory 5.00 392

Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk 

Indians of California

Chicken Ranch 

Rancheria

Housing 1.00 409

Mashantucket Pequot Tribe of 

Connecticut

38 Indiantown Road Housing 127.00 426

Mashantucket Pequot Tribe of 

Connecticut

28 Coachman Pike Housing 12.23 426

Mashantucket Pequot Tribe of 

Connecticut

61 Route 2 Wetlands and housing 1.95 426

(Continued From Previous Page)

Applicant Parcel name Proposed use Acreage

Days between 

application date and 

decision date
Appendix III

Processing Times for 87 Land in Trust 

Applications with Decisions in Fiscal Year 

2005

Page 47 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

Mashantucket Pequot Tribe of 

Connecticut

55 Coachman Pike Housing 0.08 426

Mashantucket Pequot Tribe of 

Connecticut

906 Shewville Road Housing 0.92 426

Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma T069 Tribal government offices 0.52 444

Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma T070 Tribal government offices 1.17 448

Individual member of the Blackfeet 

Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian 

Reservation of Montana

Merchant Housing n/a 475

Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the 

Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas

Hartman/Ricklefs Agriculture 160.00 475

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida Shoppyland Increase land base 180.00 479

Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of 

Michigan

Van Orden Tribal school 75.00 496

Individual member of the Morongo 

Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians of the 

Morongo Reservation, California

Robert St. Marie Housing 0.64 513

Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the 

Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas

S. Finger Agriculture 160.00 519

Individual member of the Morongo 

Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians of the 

Morongo Reservation, California

Mathews Housing and grazing 5.04 531

Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa 

Indians of Michigan

Hesser Increase land base 79.50 547

Mohegan Indian Tribe of Connecticut 24 Tracts in New London, 

Connecticut

Housing, burial, and 

undeveloped tracts

73.40 561a

Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma T065 Convenience store, gas 

station, restaurant, video 

arcade, and 300 parking spots

9.04 580

Individual member of the Puyallup 

Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation, 

Washington

Pernelle Turnipseed Retail 1.36 756

Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma T063 Expansion of chocolate factory 5.00 783

Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma T060 Parking lot n/a 834

Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota Hildahl Housing, governmental, or 

institutional

2.12 942

Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, 

Kansas

Slattery Agriculture 160.00 1,013

Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma Love County Sand and gravel processing 

plant

83.43 1,030

Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, 

Kansas

Jungman Agriculture 40.00 1,074

(Continued From Previous Page)

Applicant Parcel name Proposed use Acreage

Days between 

application date and 

decision date
Appendix III

Processing Times for 87 Land in Trust 

Applications with Decisions in Fiscal Year 

2005

Page 48 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, 

Kansas

Bausch Agriculture 160.00 1,143a

Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi 

Indians of California

Picayune Rancheria Parking lot, road, and 

undeveloped land

111.70 1,203

Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of 

Michigan

DNR Increase land base 2.00 1,247

Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of 

Michigan

Froncek Increase land base 2.00 1,247

Stockbridge Munsee Community, 

Wisconsin

Bartelme Township Government facilities, housing, 

forestry

404.03 1,387

Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa 

Indians of Michigan

Roy Recreational 20.00 1,441

Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the 

Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas

B. Finger Agriculture 75.60 1,445

Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin Haga—Sand 

Pillow/Ballfield/100'

Housing, potential commercial 

development, community 

recreation, and green space

65.00 1,476

Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin Haga—King of 

Thunder/Garvin

Housing 40.00 1,476

Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians 

of the Santa Ynez Reservation, 

California

Santa Ynez Valley Cultural center, museum, park, 

retail building

6.90 1,528

Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa 

Indians of Michigan

McCann Education and elder program 

facility, housing

4.16 1,532b

Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, 

Kansas

CN Cattle Company Agriculture 80.00 1,582

Barona Group of Capitan Grande Band 

of Mission Indians of the Barona 

Reservation, California

Berger Multiple rural use 1.87 1,588

Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the 

Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas

Powhattan Unknown 150.00 1,949

Confederated Tribes of the Colville 

Reservation, Washington

Gustafson Undeveloped 40.00 2,213a

Confederated Tribes of the Colville 

Reservation, Washington

Terrain Tamers Forested environment 380.00 2,363a

Confederated Tribes of the Colville 

Reservation, Washington

Weitman Meadowland environment 40.00 2,390c

Confederated Tribes of the Colville 

Reservation, Washington

Thompson Forested environment 40.00 2,514a

Confederated Tribes of the Colville 

Reservation, Washington

Nespelem Bend Fish and wildlife 516.36 2,702c

(Continued From Previous Page)

Applicant Parcel name Proposed use Acreage

Days between 

application date and 

decision date
Appendix III

Processing Times for 87 Land in Trust 

Applications with Decisions in Fiscal Year 

2005

Page 49 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

Source: GAO analysis of BIA land in trust applications with decisions in fiscal year 2005.

a

BIA’s file did not contain information on the date of the application. In these cases, the date of the 

tribal resolution was used for calculating processing times.

b

Off-reservation land in trust application processed under 25 C.F.R. §151.11.

c

BIA’s file did not contain information on either the date of the application or the date of the tribal 

resolution. In these cases, the date of the BIA’s letter seeking comments from state and local 

governments was used for calculating processing times.

Individual member of the Bad River 

Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of 

Chippewa Indians of the Bad River 

Reservation, Wisconsin

Salawater Housing 6.92 2,995

Confederated Tribes of the Colville 

Reservation, Washington

Hammon Housing 0.33 3,008a

St. Croix Chippewa Indians of 

Wisconsin

Palmer Housing 78.00 4,666

Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the 

Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas

Bechtold Agriculture 230.00 5,036a

Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the 

Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas

Schmidt Unknown 199.95 5,119a

Individual member of the La Jolla Band 

of Luiseno Mission Indians of the La 

Jolla Reservation, California

Rodriguez Housing 5.42 6,808

(Continued From Previous Page)

Applicant Parcel name Proposed use Acreage

Days between 

application date and 

decision date
Page 50 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

Appendix IV

Processing Times for 28 Off-Reservation Land 

in Trust Applications Awaiting Consideration 

by BIA Central Office ApendxiIV

Applicant Parcel name Proposed use Acreage

Number of days 

awaiting review at BIA 

Central Office as of 

Sept. 30, 2005

Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan Dafter M28 Commercial and housing 110.73 36

Karuk Tribe of California Oak Knoll Present: vacant lot; future: 

men's treatment, 

rehabilitation, shelter 

transitional facility

2.64 86

Karuk Tribe of California Ishi Pishi, Elliott Creek, 

Upper Katamin

Cultural/ceremonial/burial 

grounds

20.70 114

Lac Court Oreillas Band of Lake 

Superior Chippewa Indians of 

Wisconsin

LCO Herman's Landing Recreational/fishing 26.05 129

Confederated Tribes of Chehalis 

Reservation, Washington

Grand Mound Present: undeveloped; future: 

hotel and convention center

42.99 190

Kaw Nation, Oklahoma B-07-810-100486 Health, Wellness, and 

Community Center

95.39 204

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 

California

Commercial storage Commercial storage 3.98 233

Confederated Tribes of the Siletz 

Reservation, Oregon

Coop Cultural and natural 

resources

299.33 287

Delaware Nation of Oklahoma Chesapeake Terrace Present: depleted sand and 

gravel operation; future: 

rubble landfill

454.00 310

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida Kendale Lakes Golf 

Course Tracts A and B

Golf course and club house 229.30 353

Koosharem Band of Paiute Indians of 

Utah

Richfield Tribal housing and community 

center

1.72 406

Individual member of the Kootenai 

Tribe of Idaho (fractional interest)

183-C Timber production 20.00 408

Kootenai Tribe of Idaho Undivided 2/3 interest 

in 183.12

Agriculture 86.97 413

Shingle Springs Band of Miwok 

Indians, Shingle Springs Rancheria 

(Verona Tract), California

Shingle Springs/Lower 

50

Present: undeveloped; future: 

health clinic and housing

77.03 457

Confederated Tribes of the Siletz 

Reservation, Oregon

Otis Cemetery Cemetery 0.12 458

Tulalip Tribes of the Tulalip 

Reservation, Washington

Faris Traditional harvesting of 

shellfish

1.25 541

Tulalip Tribes of the Tulalip 

Reservation, Washington

Rasmussen Natural resource habitat 

enhancement

10.15 561
Appendix IV

Processing Times for 28 Off-Reservation 

Land in Trust Applications Awaiting 

Consideration by BIA Central Office

Page 51 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

Source: GAO analysis of BIA pending off-reservation land in trust applications.

Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup 

Reservation, Washington

Wilkeson Creek A Steel head fish hatchery 12.27 564

Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup 

Reservation, Washington

Wilkeson Creek B Steel head fish hatchery 4.31 564

Tulalip Tribes of the Tulalip 

Reservation, Washington

Baby Island Shellfish harvesting and 

canoe landing

1.00 578

Tulalip Tribes of the Tulalip 

Reservation, Washington

Camano Head Shellfish harvesting and 

canoe landing

20.78 676

Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians 

of Oregon

Cullet Vacant property, storage 

space

78.42 809

Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians 

of Oregon

DC Coop Commercial rental leasing 2.48 816

Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in 

Kansas and Nebraska

Block 11 Present: vacant housing; 

future: fire station and EMT 

Community Service Center

unknown 840

Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, 

Kansas

Prairie Land Agriculture 26.37 960

Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, 

Kansas

Bohannon Agriculture 101.00 1,044

Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, 

Kansas

Bernasek Agriculture 33.00 1,171

Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, 

Kansas

Chesney-Green Agriculture and housing 70.00 1,173

(Continued From Previous Page)

Applicant Parcel name Proposed use Acreage

Number of days 

awaiting review at BIA 

Central Office as of 

Sept. 30, 2005
Page 52 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

Appendix V

Processing Times for 34 Appealed Land in 

Trust Decisions Awaiting Resolution by a BIA 

Regional Director ApendxiV

Applicant Parcel name Proposed use Acreage

Number of days 

between decision 

and Sept. 30, 2005

Stockbridge Munsee Community, 

Wisconsin

Bartelme Township Government facilities, 

housing, forestry

404.03 290

Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, 

Kansas

Slattery Agriculture 160.00 311

Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo 

Reservation in Kansas

Bowhay Agriculture 150.00 406

Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, 

Kansas

Reamer Agriculture 80.00 428

Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas 

and Nebraska

Becker Agriculture 80.00 428

Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, 

Kansas

Plants PT 95/58 Agriculture 120.00 437

Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, 

Kansas

Crow Agriculture 40.00 437

Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, 

Kansas

HD Zibell PT-83 Agriculture 80.00 445

Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, 

Kansas

HD Zibell PT-85 Agriculture 80.00 445

Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, 

Kansas

HD Zibell PT-87 Agriculture 40.00 445

Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Mille Lacs 

Band

Kareen Assisted living center 40.00 451

Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, 

Kansas

Bernasek 1 Agriculture 80.00 493

Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, 

Kansas

HD Zibell #86 Agriculture 80.00 548

Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, 

Kansas

HD Zibell #84 Agriculture 40.00 549

Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of 

Michigan

Ervin Governmental offices, 

businesses, housing

0.25 696

Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of 

Michigan

Weckesser Governmental offices, 

businesses, housing

4.44 708

Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of 

Michigan

Bielski Economic development 9.00 816

Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, 

Kansas

Brunner Agriculture 75.00 1,050

Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, 

Kansas

Stalker 2001 Agriculture 622.00 1,235
Appendix V

Processing Times for 34 Appealed Land in 

Trust Decisions Awaiting Resolution by a BIA 

Regional Director

Page 53 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

Source: GAO analysis of pending appeals of BIA land in trust decisions.

Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, 

Kansas

Parr 1999 Agriculture 48.97 1,239

Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, 

Kansas

Calderwood 2 Agriculture 160.00 1,325

Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas 

and Nebraska

Deroin Agriculture 7.85 1,331

Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, 

Kansas

Beckwith Agriculture, housing 160.00 1,361

Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, 

Kansas

Bailey/Zibell Agriculture 600.00 1,438

Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Leech Lake 

Band

Walker Day care center 5.76 1,512

Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, 

Kansas

ABC Exteriors Agriculture 40.00 1,591

Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, 

Kansas

Parr Agriculture, housing 79.00 1,626

Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, 

Kansas

Buck Agriculture 1.18 1,627

Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, 

Kansas

Haag Agriculture 80.00 1,663

Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas 

and Nebraska

Blocks 4 and 5 Community center unknown 1,715

Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, 

Kansas

Ribelin Agriculture unknown 1,771

Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, 

Kansas

Bailey 1999 Agriculture 80.00 1,778

Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, 

Kansas

Walder Agriculture 120.00 1,800

Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, 

Kansas

Daugherty Agriculture 55.00 1,801

(Continued From Previous Page)

Applicant Parcel name Proposed use Acreage

Number of days 

between decision 

and Sept. 30, 2005
Page 54 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

Appendix VI

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior ApendxiVI
Appendix VI

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 55 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications
Page 56 GAO-06-781 BIA’s Processing of Land in Trust Applications

Appendix VII

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiVI

GAO Contact Robin M. Nazzaro, (202) 512-3841, nazzaror@gao.gov

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

In addition to the individual named above, Jeffery D. Malcolm, Assistant 

Director; Jean Cook; Mark Keenan; Daniel J. Semick; Carol Herrnstadt 

Shulman; and Susan Swearingen made key contributions to this report. 

Also contributing to the report were Jennifer DuBord, Susanna Kuebler, 

Greg Marchand, Justin Monroe, George Quinn, Anne Rhodes-Kline, Jena Y. 

Sinkfield, Ashanta Williams, and Greg Wilmoth.

(360603)
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional 

Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548