1. United States Department of the Interior
OFFICEOFTHE SOLICJTOR
Washington,D.C. 20240
M REPLY REFER'TD:
Memorandum
AFR 1 8 2CCG
To: Deputy Commissioner-IndianA£fairs
Attn: Director, Gaming Management S
From: AssociateDerril B. JOr&4bkSolici r - dian am r b
Re: PaskentaBand ofNomlaki Indians -detemhation of landsin Tehama County
under Section20 of IGRA
By memorandum dated October 22,1999,the Regional Director, PacificRegion, requesteda
legal deteminationat the Central Office level onthe followingfour issues:
1)Whether the Paskenta Band ('Tribe") is a "restored"tribewithin
the meaning of section20 ofthe IndianGaming RegulatoryAct
(IGRA);
2) Whether anacquisitionof land intotrustin TehamaCounty,
Californiaonbehalf of the Tribewould qualifyas the "restoration
of lands"within the meaning of section20 of IGRA, and
3) Whetherthe PaskentaBand RestorationAct places amandatory
or discretionaryduty onthe Secretaryto take land intotrustin
TehamaCounty, Californiaforthe benefit of the Tribe and
.
thereforeexemptingthe acquisitionh m 25 C.F.R. Part 151;and
4) Whether an acquisitionof land intotrustin TehamaCounty,
Californiaforthe-. --..benefit ofthe Tribeunder the PaskentaBand -.. - - -
~estoktion~ c tisexempth m~ational~nviro&entalPolicy Ah
("NEPA")compliance.'
'By memorandumdated September3,1999,the OiEceof the Regional Solicitorfor the
Pacific SouthwestRegion opinedthat the Tribethat the acquisition of land intotrust under the
PaskentaRestorationAct would be discretiormy, andthussubjectto 25 C.F.R. Part 151 and
NEPA. The RegionalDirectorrequestedthis officeto reviewthe opinionto assurenational
consistency ininterpretation.Thismemorandumconcludesthat the acquisitionof landsin
Tehama County is not discretionary, andtherefore not subjectto the provisionsin 25 C.F.R.

2. It is our opinionthat the Tribe is a "restored"tribe within the meaning of section20 of IGRA,
and that landstaken into trustby the United Statesin Tehama County, California, for the benefit
of the Tribe would qualifyasthe "restoration of lands"within the meaning of section20 of
IGRA. It is our opinionthat the Tribe's RestorationAct places a mandatory duty on the Secretary
to acquire land in TehamaCounty, California, in trust for the benefit of the Tribe, thus exempting
the acquisition from 25 C.F.R. $5 151.10 and 151.11.
The Indian gamin^ Redatow Act
There is a generalprohibition against gaming on land acquiredin trust after October 17, 1988.
25 U.S.C. 2719(a). However, section20 of IGRA sets forthseveralexemptionsto the
prohibition. Id.Q 2719(a)(l)-(b).One exemptionis for landstaken into trust as part of "the
restoration of lands for an Indian tribethat is restored to ~ederalrecognition." Id5
2719(b)(l)(B)(iii). There is a two-pronged analysisto this exemption. First, the tribe must be
"restored"withinthe meaning of IGRA. Second,the land to be acquiredmust be "restored"
withinthe meaning of IGRA. See Memorandum of Solicitorto Assistant Secretary-Indian
Affairs 2 (October 19,1999)(hereinafter "Coos Opinion").
"Restored"is not defined in IGRA, nor is there any relevant legislativehistory regarding the
meaning of thisterm. However,we have consistentlyopinedthat "restored lands" under section
20(b)(l)(B)(iii)includeonly those lands that are availableto a restored tribeaspart of its
. restorationto federal recognition. The statutethat restoresthe Tribe's Federalrecognition status
must alsoprovide forthe restorationof land, and theparticular parcel in question must fall within
the terms of the land restorationprovision. Coos Opinionat 3. When Congressspecifies or
provides concrete guidanceasto what lands are to be restored pursuantto therestorationact,
they qualify as"restored lands" under section20, regardless of the dictionarydefinition.Id.at 4;
See, e.g., Little TraverseBay Bandsof OdawaIndiansRestorationAct, 25 U.S.C.§ 1300k-4;
ConfederatedTribes of SiletzIndiansof OregonReservationAct, Pub. L. No. 96-340, section2;
Confederated Tribesof the Grand Ronde Communityof OregonReservationAct, Pub.L. No.
100-425, section 1(c).
..
Restoredto Federal Recomtlon
. . . .. The-PaskentaBand was legislat&elyterminated in 1958pupwmt.tothe Califor& Rancheria ..: . ._ __* , ....
Act Pub.L. No. 85-671,72 Stat. 619. OnNovember 2,1994, Congressenactedthe Paskenta
Band RestorationAct ("Restoration Act"). Pub.L. No. 103-454,108 Stat. 4794, codifiedat25
U.S.C. 1300m- 130011.1-7.
'
We have previously determinedon severaloccasions that the word "restored" need not appear in
the body of the Restoration or ReservationAct in order for the Tribeto be restored within the .
5C.F.R 151.10 or 5151.11,includingtheNEPA provisions.
2

3. meaning of IGRA. See Opinionof the Solicitor on Pokagon Band of Potowatomi 3-4 (September
19,1997)(hereinafter"Pokagon Opinion"); Memorandum fromAssociate Solicitor-Indian
Affairs to Deputy Commissionerfor IndianA.ffairs7 (November 12, 1997)(hereinafter"LTBB
opinion"); Letter h m Solicitorto CongressmanVic Fazio (August3,1998). Nevertheless,
section303(a)of the Paskenta RestorationAct provides:
Federalrecognitionis hereby extended to the Tribe.Except as
otherwiseprovided inthis subchapter,all laws and regulations of
general applicationto Indiansand nations, tribes, orbands of
Indiansthat arenot inconsistentwith any specificprovision of this
subchaptershallbe applicable to the tribe and itsmembers.
25 U.S.C. $ 1300m-1(a) (emphasis added). Section303(b) states:
.
[A]U rights andprivileges of the Tribe and itsmembersunder any
Federaltreaty, Executiveorder, agreement,or statute, orunder any
authoritywhich were diminished or lost under the Act ofAugust
18,1958(PublicLaw 85-671; 72 Stat. 619), are hereby restored
and the provisionsof suchAct shallbe inapplicableto the Tribe
and its members afterNovember 2,1994.
Id 5 1300x11-l(b) (emphasis added). Section303(c)makesthe tribe and itsmembers eligiblefor-
allFederal servicesandbenefits furnishedto.federallyrecognizedtribes or theirmembers. Id.§
13O h - 1(c).
It is clearfrom the RestorationActprovisions that thePaskentaBand is a "tribethat isrestoredto
Federal recognition" within the meaning of section20 of IGRA. See Memorandum fiom
Associate Solicitor-IndianAffairsto Director, Indian GamingManagement Staff2-3(January
18,2000); Coos Opinionat 2-3; PokagonOpinion at 5-7.
Restored Lands
TheTribe's RestorationAct states:
. - .
- . . - . . . - . . - . . - ..- 2-. .- . . . . . - . - . . . __ .' .._. ,.-.-... - . - .
' . . . . I . - . ) . . - -. ;-r.-
-. - .
The Secretary shall acceptany real property locatedinTehama
County, California, forthe benefit of the Tribeif conveyed or
otherwisetrand& to the Secretaryif, atthe time of such
- conveyance or transfer, there areno adverse legal claimsto such
p q a t y , includingoutstandingliens, mortgages, ortaxes owed.
The Secretarymay acceptany additionalacreage inthe Tribe's
serviceareapursuantto the authorityof the Secretaryunder the
Act of June 18,1934(25U.S.C.461 et seq.).

4. 25 U.S.C. 5 1300m-3(a).2
As explainedabove, lands qualify as "restored" landsunder section2O(b)(l)(B)(iii)of IGRA if
they fall withinthe land acquisitionprovisionsas setforth by Congressin atribe's Restoration
Act. The PaskentaBand RestorationAct provides, inter alia, for the acquisitionof land within
Tehama County. Therefore, any real property within Tehama Countythat areacquiredinto trust
by the Secretaryon behalf of the Tribe qualifiesas "therestorationof lands"withinthe meaning
of section20 of IGRA.
Com~liancewith 25 C.F.R.Part 151and NEPA
The Secretary's authority, procedures and policy for acceptingland into trust are set out in the
regulationsat 25 C.F.R. Part 151. Two types of acquisitionsare contemplatedin the regulations
-mandatory and discretionary. For discretionaryacquisitions, the Secretarymust consider
variousfactorsin evaluatingwhether to accept land intrust for individualIndiansand Indian
tribeswhen the acquisition"isnot mandated." by legislatioh. 25 C.F.R. $9 151.10, 151.11.For
example,the Department must considerthe need of the individualIndianortribe for additional
land and must considerthe purpose for which the landwill be used 99 15l.lO(b),(c),
151.11(a). The Secretarymust also considerthe extent to which the tribehas provided
informationthat allowsthe Secretaryto comply with theNational EnvironmentalPolicy Act
(NEPA). Id.$ 151.10(h), 151.11(a).
If the trustacquisitionis "mandated"by Congress, thenthe Bureauof IndianAffairs is not
required to considerthe factorsenumeratedin sections 151-10and 151.11in detexmining
whether to acceptthe land intotnist. However, other provisions of Part 151apply when an
acquisitionis mandated by Congress,e.g. 25 C.F.R. $9 151.9 and 151.12(b).
The Tribe's Restoration Act provides:
The Secretary shallacceptany realproperty located in Tehama
County, California, for the benefit of the Tribeif conveyed or
otherwisetransfmed to the Secretaryif,at the time of such
conveyanceortransfer, thereareno adverselegal claimsto such
_ -__- property,-hc1&g cut,a&g Kens, mortgages,artaxes GYEL- . .- - - - ----.
25 U.S.C.$ 1300m-3(a). Languagealmostidenticaltothis has been determinedto createa
mandatory dutyonbehalfof the Secretaryto acquire land intotrustandnot subjectto 25 C.F.R.
151.10. See LTBB:opinionat 8.
Subsection (c) of section 1300111-3 provides thatany land conveyed or-erred under
the land acquisitionprovisions shallbe part of the Tribe's reservation.

5. In SaultSte. Marie Tribe of Lake Su~eriorChiDpewaIndians v. United .States, 78 F.Supp2d 699
(W.D. Mich. 1999), the courtupheld the Secretary's determinationthat the acquisitionof land
into trustof behalf of the Little TraverseBay Bands of OdawaIndians("LTBB")was mandatory,
andthusnot subjectto 25 C.F.R. 151.10 and 151.11.Id.at 705. The LTBB RestorationAct
provides:
The Secretaryshall acquirereal property in Emmet and Charlevoix
Countiesforthe benefit of the LittleTraverseBay Bands. The
Secretaryshall also acceptany real property located inthose
countiesfor the benefit of the Little TraverseBay Bandsif
conveyed or otherwisetransferredto the Secretary,if at the time of
such acceptance,there areno adverse legal claims on suchproperty
includingoutstandingliens, mortgages or taxes owed.
25U.S.C. 5 1300k-4(a).3 The Court held that the Secretary's interpretationof the statute as
requiringthe mandatory acceptanceof property intotrustin the named countieswas not arbitrary
and capricious. Sault Ste. Marie, at 705. The Court statedthat the Secretary's positionwas
"eminentlyreasonable interpretation"of the Restoration Act. Id..
NEPA compliance is required for discretionarytrustacquisitionsunder theprovisionsof 25
C.F.R. Part 151.1O(h). However,NEPA compIianceis not necessaryinthis instance because the
acquisitionof property id TehamaCounty for the Tribeis explicitly mandated by Congressby
the Tribe's RestorationAct. See LTBB Opinion at 8-9. In ConfederatedTribesof Coos. Lower
Umpaua and SiuslawIndiansv. PortlandArea Director,) 27 IBIA 48 (1994), the Interior Board
ofIndianAppeals foundthatthe BIAwas not required to comply withNEPA prior to taking land
into trustpursuantto the Coqde Tribe's RestorationAct becausethe acquisitionwas mandated
by Congress and the actionof the BIAArea Director, intakingthe land intotrust,was ministerial
in nature. The CoquilleRestorationAct contains languagesimilarto that of thePaskentaBand's
RestorationAct, See25 U.S.C. $715c(a). Thus,NEPA complianceis not necessary for
acquisitionof land inTehamaCounty intotrustforthe benefit of the Paskenta Band. SeeLTBB
opinionat 8-9.
However, the acquisition of land in TehamaCounty can only occur if there areno adverselegal
- - . claim exisling.ontheproperty. We 5elievethat zd~ese-!e&lclaims-includepWtia.1- -.... .- .....+. -.. -
environmentalliability. 25U.S.C.5 1300m-3(a). As aresult, the BIA must comply with the
, The Courtnoted that in contrast, subsection(c) of the LlTB RestorationAct statesthe
s&tary "mayhccept additionalacreagein the Band's servicearea. SaultSte. Marie, at 702.
The sameprovisionexistsinthe PaskentaBand's RestorationAct. However, it shouldbe noted
thatthe use of the word "shall" in the 1egislation.doesnot in and of itselfcreate amandatory duty
to acquirethe land intrust.The land acquisitionprovision must be read inits entiretybefore it
canbe determined whetherthe Secretary's duty is mandatory or discretionary.

6. requirements of 602 DM 2, Land Acquisitions: Hazardous SubstanceDeterminations,to
determinewhether any suchpotential envhr&ental claimsexistbefore the land may be
accepted into trust for the benefit of the Tribe. See LTBB opinionat 8.
TheRegional Director alsoaskedwhether the IBIAYsdecision in Santanav. SacramentoArea
Director. Bureau of IndianAffairs, 33IBIA 135(1999), requires the BIA to comply withNEPA
in mandatorytrustacquisitions. In Santana, the Board determinedthat the stipulatedjudgment
in Hardwickv. United States,No. C-79-1710-SW (N.D. Cal. 1983), imposed a mandatoryduty
on the Secretaryto acquire land in trust, ifthe restorationto truststatus was in accordance with
theterms of the stipulatedjudgement. 33 IBIA141. The Board held that the BIA exercisedits
discretionary authority under Part 151by agreeingto restore landsto truststatus in the stipulated
judgment and if a requestmet all of the requirements in thejudgement, the mandatory provisions
of the Part 151regulations did not apply. a.at 142.
The Board also determined,however, thatthe Secretarymust complywith NEPA in restoring
those landsto trust status because the partiescould not waive compliancewith federallaw by
enteringinto a stipulatedagreement. Id,at 143. The authority authorizingthe Secretaryto
accept land intotrustunder the stipulatedjudgement in Hardwickwas 25 U.S.C.5465, the
Secretary's discretionary authorityunder the Indian ReorganizationAct (IRA).
Sincethe stipulatedjudgment in Hardwickpertainedto the Secretary's discretionary authorityto
acquire land underthe IRA, and the stipulatedjudgment couldnot waive federal lawor
requirements, the Board foundthat acquisitionsunder the Hardwick stipulatedjudgement must
comply withWEPA. 33 IBIA at 143. TheBoard didnot address,nor was the issuebefore it, the
BLA's compliancewithNEPA inthe context of Congressionallegislationmandatingthe
acquisitionof lands intotrust.The Board did not ovede, or even mention, itsprevious decision
in ConfederatedTribesof Coos, 27IBIA 48(1994). It is our opinionthat the IBIA's holding in
Santanapertains ody to requests for acquisitionsunder the stipulatedjudgement inthe Hardwick
litigation and is limitedin itsholdings to those circum,stances. Thus,Santanadoesnot require
the Secretaryto complywithNEPA when Congresshas legislativelymandatedthe acquisitionof
land into trust. The Board's decision in ConfederatedTribes of COOS 27 IBIA 48 (1994), is still
controllinglawwhen acquisitionsaremandated by Congress.
- .. . -- If you have anyquestions, please contactPattCJamisanat (202) 208-4388 or-MaryAnne - ,- - - :: .,, :.: . . - .
Kenworthy at (202) 208431. '
cc: Regional Director, Pacific Region
Regional Solicitor, PacificRegion
Officeof TrustResponsibilities, BIA
Attention: Chief, Division of Real Estate Services