U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

39–675 PDF 2008

S. HRG. 110–224

BACKLOGS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF THE

INTERIOR: LAND INTO TRUST APPLICATIONS;

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS;

PROBATE; APPRAISALS AND LEASE APPROVALS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 4, 2007

Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota, Chairman 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Vice Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

TOM COBURN, M.D., Oklahoma 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

SARA G. GARLAND, Majority Staff Director 

DAVID A. MULLON, JR., Minority Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on October 4, 2007 ............................................................................ 1

Statement of Senator Dorgan ................................................................................. 1 

Statement of Senator Murkowski ........................................................................... 42

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 45

WITNESSES

Artman, Carl J., Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, U.S. Department 

of the Interior ....................................................................................................... 3

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4

Bigelow, Frank, Supervisor, Madera County Board of Supervisors .................... 24

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 26

Chicks, Robert, Vice President, National Congress of American Indians 

(NCAI), Midwest Region; President, Stockbridge Munsee Band of Mohican 

Indians; accompanied by John Dossett, General Counsel, NCAI .................... 33

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35

His Horse Is Thunder, Ron, Chairman, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe ................... 14

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 15

Nash, Douglas, Director, Institute for Indian Estate Planning and Probate ..... 27

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29

Rhodes, William R., Governor, Gila River Indian Community ............................ 18

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19

APPENDIX

Altekruse, Charlie, North Fork Rancheria Community Relations, e-mail .......... 118

Amey, Nettie L., Chairperson/President, Fairmead Community & Friends, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 88

Anderson, John P., Madera County Sheriff, letter, dated October 17, 2007 ...... 111

Belton, Jerry T., Mayor, City of Chowchilla, letter, dated October 17, 2007 ..... 112

Blackwood, Ken, CEO/President, San Joaquin Valley Black Chamber of Commerce, letter, dated October 17, 2007 ................................................................. 106

Bomprezzi, Sally J., Mayor Pro Tem, City of Madera, letter, dated October 

15, 2007 ................................................................................................................. 79

Bonilla, Rosanne, Realtor/Broker, e-mail, dated October 16, 2007 ..................... 81

Brannon, Randall L., Citizen, Madera, Calif., letter, dated October 18, 2007 ... 85

Bray, Debra L., President/CEO, Madera Chamber of Commerce, letter, dated 

October 17, 2007 ................................................................................................... 128

Cobb, Jim, President, Taxpayers Association of Madera County, letter, dated 

October 18, 2007 ................................................................................................... 113

Crooks, Stanley R., Chairman, Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, 

prepared statement with attachment ................................................................. 62

Darracq, Nicole, Partner, AgPRO Marketing, letter, dated October 18, 2007 .... 87

DaSilva, Chris, Resident, Madera, e-mail ............................................................. 118

Farinelli, Rick, GM/VP of Production, Berry Construction, Inc., letter, dated 

October 16, 2007 ................................................................................................... 83

Frazier, Sally L., Superintendent of Schools, Madera County, e-mail, dated 

October 18, 2007 ................................................................................................... 78

Gilbert, Gary, Former District 5 Supervisor, Madera County, letter, dated 

October 19, 2007 ................................................................................................... 115

Hall, Larry, Coldwell Banker Real Estate, letter, dated October 18, 2007 ........ 89

Hamzy, Mike A., Principal/Owner, Harbison International Inc., letter, dated 

October 19, 2007 ................................................................................................... 90

Kahn, Bobby, Executive Director, Madera County Economic Development 

Commission, letter, dated October 17, 2007 ...................................................... 119

Page

IV

Lee, David, Coldwell Banker Real Estate, letter, dated October 18, 2007 ......... 117

Marden, Robert and Donna, Madera Police Department Volunteers, letter, 

dated October 17, 2007 ........................................................................................ 82

Mariscotti, Christopher, e-mail, dated October 18, 2007 ..................................... 118

Medellin, Andy, Owner, Andy’s Sports & Design, letter ...................................... 120

Mindt, Steven A., Mayor, City of Madera, letter, dated October 17, 2007 ......... 49

Nelson, Glenda, Chairperson, Estom Yumeka Maidu Tribe, Enterprise 

Rancheria, letter with attachment, dated October 4, 2007 .............................. 122

Perez, Herman, Co-Chair, Business Coalition for a Better Madera, letter, 

dated October 17, 2007 ........................................................................................ 114

Piepho, Mary N., Chair, Board of Supervisors, Contra Costa County, letter 

and prepared statement ...................................................................................... 92

Pistoresi, Monte, Pistoresi Ambulance Service, letter, dated October 19, 2007 . 91

Prosperi, Sam, Account Manager, Aerotek Staffing, letter, dated October 19, 

2007 ....................................................................................................................... 77

Rivera, Dora, President/CEO, FAHCC, letter, dated October 18, 2007 .............. 116

Ridge, Ollia, President, Golden Valley Chamber of Commerce, letter ................ 86

Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, prepared statement .................................................. 50

Salazar, Nora, President, Nora & Associates Realty, letter ............................. 130, 131

Schmall, Darren, Owner, Pizza Farm Agri-tainment Company, letter ............... 121

Slack, Luther, President, Madera NAACP, letter, dated October 18, 2007 ........ 129

Village of Monticello, Town of Thompson, and Sullivan County, joint prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 108

Written Questions Submitted to Carl J. Artman .................................................. 131

(1)

BACKLOGS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF THE

INTERIOR: LAND INTO TRUST

APPLICATIONS; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENTS; PROBATE; APPRAISALS AND 

LEASE APPROVALS 

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2007

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room 

628, Senate Dirksen Office Building, Hon. Byron L. Dorgan, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA 

The CHAIRMAN. We will call the hearing to order. This is an oversight hearing of the Indian Affairs Committee of the United States 

Senate. 

Today, the Committee is holding an oversight hearing to examine 

the status of tribal applications at the Department of the Interior. 

Those applications especially relate to the management and the development of Indian lands. 

Since I became Chairman of this Committee, I have made it clear 

that my priorities would focus on Indian health care, housing and 

education, as well as economic development. Too many tribal communities, in my judgment, go without these basic services that 

many of us take for granted. 

However, before we can effectively move on these issues, we 

must first help tribes secure and develop their own land base. Land 

holds a great spiritual and cultural significance to Indian tribes. 

The tribal land base is the necessary building block that enables 

tribal governments to provide housing, economic development, and 

essential government services to their citizens. 

Although Indian tribes are governments, almost all activities 

that involve the development of Indian land have to be approved 

by the U.S. Department of the Interior. That includes placing land 

into trust for the benefit of the Indian tribe and approving leases 

for most economic or agricultural activities on Indian lands. Congress delegated the responsibility to approve these transactions to 

the Secretary of the Interior. Our intent was to protect and preserve the tribal land base. However, delays at the Department of 

the Interior in performing its duties have dramatically slowed the 

2

growth and the development of tribal communities and their economies. 

Let me provide some examples: the Gila River Indian community 

in Arizona. In February of this year I held a listening session on 

the Gila River Indian Reservation south of Phoenix, Arizona. During the session, the tribe showed me a state of the art office building—the picture is on that chart—a state of the art office building 

that it constructed on its trust land. 

Apparently, after construction was complete on the building, the 

BIA decided it needed to approve a master lease before the tribe 

could sublet any of the space to tenants. The tribe has been trying 

to get this lease approved for more than a year. There is still no 

lease. So after investing $7.2 million to build a 71,000 square foot 

office building, the tribe has been unable to sublet any of that 

space for over a year and that building sits there empty. 

I am confident that the BIA as trustee wants to help the tribes 

with economic development opportunities like this, but in this case 

it is not happening. So I am glad we have the opportunity today 

to hear from Mr. Artman and others to explain what has prevented 

that sort of thing from happening. 

Another example is the Puyallup Tribe where the tribe acquired 

12 acres of land in 1997 that it uses as a fish hatchery to preserve 

its prize steelhead trout. The tribe submitted an application to 

have the land placed in trust in 1997. Seven years later, in 2004, 

the BIA regional office told the tribe their application and a draft 

decision had been sent to the Assistant Secretary for approval. It 

is now October, 2007, a full decade later, and three years after the 

regional office said it had been sent to the Assistant Secretary for 

approval, and no decision has been made on the tribe’s application. 

On September 27, a notice was published in the Federal Register 

stating that the Secretary would be placing 750 acres of land into 

trust for the Shakopee Sioux community within the next 30 days. 

That is the Shakopee Sioux community in Minnesota. I am sure 

the tribe is grateful to have a decision, but they waited 11 years. 

These delays I think have serious consequences and I want to 

show how after having to wait 10 years for a decision impacts the 

ability of tribes to provide essential services to their people. Photograph one that we have held up there shows what the tribal and 

surrounding land looked like in 1997. The land that the tribe was 

trying to have taken into trust is outlined in red. 

In photograph two you will see the tribal and surrounding lands, 

and how they looked in 2005. Much development is occurring on 

the tribe’s trust land and on non-Indian land. The only pockets of 

land without any development is the land that the tribe is seeking 

to have taken into trust. The tribe is hoping to use the land for 

housing or to build a community center. 

These pictures show how the delays at the Department of Interior are impairing the ability of the tribes to develop their land, 

their economies and their future, and the delays are just not acceptable. I don’t understand why the delays are occurring. I do 

know that there was a long period of time when the Assistant Secretary’s position was open over at Interior. I got engaged. This committee was engaged in trying to get a new Assistant Secretary on 

board. We are pleased that Mr. Artman is there. 

3

I want to be clear that these delays are not a new phenomenon 

at the Department of the Interior. They have existed for a long, 

long time. Indian Country has always expressed an overwhelming 

concern that the delays on many issues are becoming worse. We 

also hear concerns from both Indian and non-Indian communities 

about the lack of transparency with many of these processes. We 

understand that internal guidelines and policies, rather than published regulations very often govern the process. 

So today, we will hear from Assistant Secretary Carl Artman 

about the current state of affairs at the Department and how these 

problems are being addressed. I plan to ask Assistant Secretary 

Artman to come back in six months and provide us with another 

status report on these same issues. At that time, we will decide as 

a Committee whether we need to find some way to intervene in 

some of these matters. 

Let me thank all of you who have come to Washington today to 

participate and to testify. 

Carl Artman is the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs at the 

Department of the Interior. Assistant Secretary Artman will explain the five processes and provide the Committee with a status 

report on the number of pending applications for each. We will 

then hear from five additional witnesses. I will introduce each of 

them separately when we ask them to testify. 

Assistant Secretary Artman, why don’t you proceed? Your entire 

statement will be made a part of the permanent record, and you 

may summarize. 

STATEMENT OF CARL J. ARTMAN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR 

INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. ARTMAN. Thank you, and good morning, Mr. Chairman and 

members of the Committee. It is a pleasure to be here to present 

the Department’s statement on the pending land-into-trust applications, environmental impact statements, probates, appraisals and 

lease approvals. 

With your permission granted, I will submit the full written testimony for the record and just make a brief opening statement. 

This hearing was called to review the process surrounding and 

the potential backlog of pending applications or Bureau actions related to tribal and individual tribal member real property. We have 

some bright spots, areas in which we have tackled the questioned 

backlog with success, and we have some other areas that are, at 

best, can be called opportunities for great improvement. 

Our bright spot is probates. I am pleased to note that we have 

cut our inventory in half over the last two years. Moreover, 98 percent of our backlog cases are ready for adjudication and distribution of the assets. We plan to clear the backlog by the end of 2008. 

In fact, by 2009, we plan to handle the probate cases with BIA staff 

and eliminate the need for outside contractors. This was accomplished without the internet, and if we are successful in getting 

back online, we expect that we can shorten the case preparation 

phases. 

The BIA took a critical look at the historically high caseload of 

probate cases in late 2005. An average Indian probate case took an 

excessive amount of time to prepare, adjudicate and distribute. 

4

Building on the reorganization and standardization of the probate 

program, the Bureau has reduced the probate caseload by one half 

over the last two years. 

Combining the efforts of staff dedicated to probate, with a new 

comprehensive tracking system, the Department has improved case 

management and coordination of probate activities across three 

separate offices: the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Office of Hearing 

Appeals, and the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians. 

Acquisition of land into trust is an area that needs a lot of work. 

You will probably ask me today how many outstanding applications 

we have for any particular area. The best that I can give you is 

an estimate, because we don’t have an accurate tracking system for 

applications. This is an area besieged by a growing number of applications, decades of differing, if not contradictory, guidelines from 

within, and a culture of reluctance that is forged by lawsuits. 

Our frontline employees in the region are frustrated by the growing stack of applications, and the tribes represented by the people 

to my left are frustrated by the lack of action and the impact that 

it has on the governmental needs, housing, health care, and economic development. Each category, on or off reservation, gaming or 

non-gaming, has its unique challenges. 

This has been a front burner issue for me since before I came to 

the Department. As my tribe’s Chief Counsel, I worked in coordination with the Midwest Regional Office to help develop new methods 

to expedite the land-into-trust applications. I understand first-hand 

the frustration felt by the tribes across the Country. As I told this 

Committee during the confirmation process, fixing the fee-to-trust 

issues was a priority for me. 

We have been working on solutions for the on-reservation questions in recent months and this will soon bear results. We found 

that BIA real estate offices that are successful in managing their 

fee-to-trust workload have, to some degree, implemented corrective 

measures with the intent of moving cases forward. The most success can be found in varying levels in some regions do in part because they defined what a complete application is and will not accept an incomplete application. They follow stringent response time 

lines and have defined when a case becomes inactive, and implement a process for handling those cases. 

Regional staff are looking for guidance and leadership on this 

issue. They will receive it, and in turn I am confident that they will 

produce the results that we are looking for. 

I look forward to answering your questions regarding these two 

issues, as well as any on commercial leasing, appraisals, environmental submissions or other issues. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Artman follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CARL J. ARTMAN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INDIAN

AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Good morning Mr. Chairman, Madam Vice Chairwoman, and Members of the 

Committee. It is a pleasure to be here today to present the Department’s statement 

on the land into trust applications, environmental impact statements (EIS), probates, appraisals and lease approvals processes and the number of each that are 

5

pending. My testimony includes an overview of each item and the procedures that 

we follow as set forth in statute and regulation in order to process them. 

Probate 

I am pleased to announce that we have cut our inventory in half over the last 

two years. Moreover, 98 percent of our backlogged cases are ready for adjudication 

and distribution of assets. We plan to clear the backlog by the end of 2008. In fact, 

by 2009, we plan to handle the probate cases with BIA staff and eliminate the need 

for outside contractors. 

The BIA took a critical look at the historically high caseload of probate cases in 

late 2005. An average Indian probate case took an excessive amount of time to prepare, adjudicate and distribute. Building on the reorganization and standardization 

of the probate program, the Bureau has reduced the probate caseload by one half 

over the last two years. Combining the efforts of staff dedicated to probate with a 

new comprehensive tracking system (ProTrac), the Department has improved case 

management and coordination of probate activities across three separate offices: the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, The Office of Hearings and Appeals, and the Office of the 

Special Trustee for American Indians. 

There are four phases for the completion of a probate case under BIA’s new system. Using ProTrac, BIA monitors the performance of each case at each phase all 

the way through distribution of assets to the heirs. These phases are: (1) Pre-Case 

Preparation; (2) Case Preparation; (3) Adjudication; and (4) the Closing Process. 

In 2005, we created a report regarding the probate backlog and, as of today, the 

BIA has completed 98 percent of the estates in the Case Preparation Phase and 86 

percent of the estates have been distributed. The 2005 report included all estates 

where the decedent’s date of death was prior to 2000 or whose date of death was 

unknown and the estate was part of the managed inventory as of September 30, 

2005. As of September 21, 2007, the ProTrac system contains 53,802 cases, of which 

17,208 cases are currently active. In FY07, the Bureau exceeded its annual probate 

goal by 31 percent. 

Trust Land Acquisitions for Non-Gaming Purposes 

The basis for the administrative decision to place land into trust for the benefit 

of an Indian tribe is established either by a specific statute applying to an Indian 

tribe, or by Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (IRA), which authorizes the Secretary to acquire land in trust for Indians ‘‘within or without existing 

reservations.’’ Under these authorities, the Secretary applies his discretion after 

consideration of the criteria for trust acquisitions in our ‘‘151’’ regulations (25 CFR 

Part 151), unless the acquisition is legislatively mandated. Mandatory land acquisitions may be due to a land claim settlement with a specific Indian tribe. 

There are two primary types of trust land acquisitions under this category which 

are processed for Indian landowners by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). They 

are: (1) on-reservation and (2) off-reservation. We have approximately 1,211 fee-totrust submissions pending, of which over 1,100 are not yet ripe for decision. On-reservation requests maybe made by both tribal and individual Indians, off-reservation 

requests maybe made by Indian tribes. 

Taking land into trust is an important decision not only for the Indian tribe seeking the determination but for the local community where the land is located. The 

transference of fee land title to trust status may have serious tax and jurisdictional 

consequences that must be considered before any discretionary action maybe taken. 

Additionally, the Federal Government must ensure that the land acquisition will be 

in the best interest of the applicant and that the Federal Government has sufficient 

resources to properly manage the property. 

The 151 process is initiated when an Indian tribe or an individual Indian submits 

a request to take land into trust. The regulations require that an applicant submit 

a written request describing the land to be acquired and other required information. 

Once a request arrives at the BIA agency or regional office, it is entered into the 

BIA’s Fee-to-Trust Tracking System. The request is reviewed to determine whether 

all information has been submitted and whether there are additional steps needed 

to complete the application. The BIA works with the applicant to complete the application. 

The applicant must submit: (1) a map and a legal description of the land (a survey 

may be needed if the land cannot be described by an ‘‘aliquot’’ legal description); (2) 

a justification of why the land should be in trust; and (3) information on the present 

use of the property, the intended use of the property, and whether there are any 

improvements on the land. 

The BIA must also take several internal steps necessary to assess the application. 

These include determining whether the land is on the applicant’s reservation or conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:40 Feb 06, 2008 Jkt 039675 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\39675.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
6

tiguous to it and whether the trust acquisition is mandatory or discretionary. We 

check whether there are access roads to and from the property as we will not acquire landlocked parcels. 

We also determine whether the applicant already has an undivided fractional 

trust or restricted interest in the land it is requesting to have placed into trust, and 

how much trust or restricted land the applicant has an interest in overall. We assess whether the land is already under the tribe’s jurisdiction and, if not, whether 

there are any anticipated additional responsibilities we would assume if the fee land 

were taken into trust. We may also examine if the property lies within the Indian 

tribe’s approved Land Consolidation Plan. 

For off-reservation land acquisitions, additional information is required. The BIA 

will request a business plan if the land is to be used for economic development. If 

the land is within the reservation of another Indian tribe, the applicant must receive written consent from the other Indian tribe’s governing body if the applicant 

does not already own a fractional trust or restricted fee interest in the property to 

be acquired. If the land is off-reservation, we examine the proximity to the applicant’s other trust or restricted land. 

Once an applicant has submitted sufficient information, the BIA sends out notification letters to the state, county, and municipal governments having regulatory jurisdiction over the land, with a request to respond within thirty (30) days with a 

description of the impacts of transferring the land into trust regulatory jurisdiction, 

real property taxes and special assessments. 

The next stage in the process, compliance with National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) is essential to the BIA’s decision-making, and takes substantial time to 

complete. These assessments are done to determine if the proposed use of the land 

is feasible or desirable and what effect the proposed project will have on the human 

environment, local habitation and wildlife. Depending on the type of environmental 

review done, this process can take months or years. A Categorical Exclusion (CAT–

EX) can be used if there has been previous environmental documentation or there 

will be no change in land use for compliance with NEPA. 

Applicants are encouraged to begin their NEPA process at the same time the BIA 

sends out the impact notification letters. The NEPA process begins with the publication in the Federal Register of a ‘‘Notice of Intent’’ to conduct an EA or EIS. Most 

of the non-gaming applicants conduct an EA. 

In addition, an applicant must conduct a hazardous materials survey. This survey 

alerts the applicant and the BIA to any environmental hazards associated with the 

land that might conflict with the project’s use or make the land undesirable. 

For on-reservation applications, the Regional Office or Agency Superintendent 

makes the final determination of whether to approve the acquisition. For off-reservation non-gaming acquisitions, the Regional Offices send the recommended decisions on the applications to the Central Office in Washington, D.C., for review. 

When the BIA approves the fee-to-trust application, it conducts a title examination to determine whether there are any liens, encumbrances, or other clouds on the 

title that make the land unmarketable. 

After the decision, the BIA prepares a ‘‘Notice of Decision’’ to take the land into 

trust for publication. At this point, any governmental entity or individual with 

standing who objects to the decision to take the land into trust may file an appeal. 

If the appeals process upholds our decision to take land into trust, this is also published. 

Environmental Impact Statements 

When an Indian tribe submits a request to the BIA to fund, issue a permit for, 

or approve an undertaking, the BIA produces an EA or EIS, usually by contract, 

to help inform a federal decision by analyzing the project’s potentially significant 

impacts to the environment. The most common BIA ‘‘federal actions’’ are lease approvals and transfers of land into or out of trust status. 

Three occasions during the EIS process require a notice in the Federal Register: 

(1) the ‘‘Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS’’ at the start of the process, (2) the ‘‘Notice of Availability of a Draft EIS’’ when a draft EIS is completed and issued, and 

(3) the ‘‘Notice of Availability of the Final EIS’’ at the time the final EIS is completed and issued. When the BIA is the lead agency, it prepares and issues the ‘‘Notice of intent to Prepare an EIS.’’ The Regional Director oversees the scope of the 

project. 

When the Draft EIS is complete, a ‘‘Notice of Availability’’ is published in the Federal Register by both the EPA and the BIA. The BIA’s ‘‘Notice of Availability of the 

Draft EIS’’ informs the public that we are preparing or making available an EIS, 

and there is a timeframe provided in which they must provide their comments. Once 

7

the agency has received and responded to comments, it publishes the ‘‘Notice of 

Availability of the Final EIS.’’

After issuance of the Final EIS, the BIA has sufficient information to make a policy decision on whether to approve the acquisition. The Regional Director or Agency 

Superintendent makes this decision for most non-gaming matters, and issues a 

Record of Decision (ROD) indicating whether the project has been approved or disapproved. Lawsuits on the sufficiency of the EIS and on the BIA’s consideration of 

the regulatory criteria under 25 CFR Part 151 take place at this point. 

The length of time necessary to prepare an EIS depends on the complexity of the 

proposed project. In addition, public comment may point out weaknesses in the EIS 

that require further studies or assessments before the Final EIS may be issued. 

Statements are susceptible to delays when multiple agencies must coordinate work 

on an EIS. Delays also occur when the Federal EIS is stalled because the tribe alters the project plan or scope. 

Appraisals 

Appraisals are conducted to provide impartial estimates of market value for a variety of real property trust interests. Consistent with regulatory requirements, the 

vast majority of trust transactions (including the purchase of fractional interests by 

the Indian Lands Consolidation Office) require an appraisal be conducted to ensure 

a fair return on the use of trust assets. Appraisals are generally used to identify 

a beginning rate at which to initiate the negotiation of lease terms. 

In FY 2002, pursuant to Secretarial Order, the management and operation of the 

real estate appraisal function was transferred from the BIA to the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians (OST). This transfer was conducted to eliminate 

the appearance and potential for a conflict of interest that could arise in response 

due to the reporting structure that required appraisers to report to the BIA Regional Directors who were requesting the appraisal. In FY 2005, funding for the program likewise was transferred to the OST. 

Appraisals are requested by the BIA when required for a trust transaction. The 

BIA issues the appraisal request to the OST Office of Appraisal Services (OAS) 

which conducts the appraisal and returns the completed valuation to the BIA for 

its use. OAS appraisers aim to complete appraisals to meet the due dates requested 

by BIA. 

Currently, there is a backlog of appraisal requests in every region except the 

Eastern region. the largest backlog is in the Alaska region, where unique conditions 

exist relating to the large number of native organizations that request appraisals 

directly from OAS instead of through the BIA, as well as weather and accessibility 

issues that limit the ability of OAS to conduct appraisals year round. 

To address the backlog of appraisals, OAS has been working to carefully review 

each region’s workload to determine those appraisals that are currently required. In 

addition, OAS is working to contract the vast majority of appraisal work to third 

parties, and to focus the role of staff appraisers on reviewing the appraisal, which 

is a federally inherent function. In March 2007, OST introduced the ITARS appraisal tracking system. All requests for appraisals are entered and tracked through 

this system. ITARS will provide a variety of management reports for evaluating the 

effectiveness of the appraisal program and an early detection system should the 

backlog begin to be a problem. 

Lease Approvals 

Commercial development leases may involve tribal land, allotted land, or both. 

Most reservations do not have master plans and the development proposals may 

cover hundreds of acres. While delays are often incurred in obtaining BIA approval 

of these negotiated leases, especially where allotted land is involved, significant 

delays may also arise from the tribal Land Use and Economic Development processes administered by various tribal departments and committees. Delays in processing by the BIA may involve either the terms of the leases themselves, or the need 

for additional supporting documents to satisfy statutory or regulatory requirements 

or other trust-based obligations to the Indian landowners. 

These leases are typically negotiated by representatives of the parties. As a result, 

the appraisal needed to establish an acceptable ‘‘Minimum Rent’’ and the extensive 

documentation needed to comply with NEPA, are often not obtained by the lessee 

until after the basic lease terms have been agreed upon. 

To expedite the process, appraisals may be obtained with the cost to the lessee, 

and submitted for review and approval by the Department’s Office of Appraisal 

Services, but the terms of those appraisal assignments may need to be negotiated 

in advance. For the type of long-term mixed use projects being undertaken on allotted land located in urban areas, the BIA may also complete an economic analysis; 

8

based on such an analysis, the BIA may then seek to negotiate a shorter lease term 

and/or require that the leases also provide for the payment of an ‘‘Additional Rent,’’ 

to ensure that rent payments to the landowners keep up with land values over time. 

Congressional incorporation of a single ‘‘land use’’ provision in the Indian Land 

Consolidation Act Amendments of 2000 has streamlined the landowner consent 

process for commercial leasing of allotted land, with the consent of only a percentage of the ownership now being needed. As amended in 1970, the Long-Term Leasing Act requires that BIA ensures, before approving a lease, that ‘‘adequate consideration has been given to the relationship between the use of the leased lands and 

the use of neighboring lands; the height, quality and safety of any structures or 

other facilities to be constructed on such lands; the availability of police and fire 

protection and other services; the availability of judicial forums for all criminal and 

civil causes arising on the leased lands; and the effect on the environment of the 

uses to which the leased land will be subject.’’ Though these ‘‘impact-based’’ standards were enacted shortly after NEPA, the courts have held that leases of Indian 

trust lands are subject to NEPA and other federal land use statutes, and leases 

which have been approved without proper NEPA documentation have been found 

to be void even after the lessee has acted in reliance on the approval. 

The Department’s current trust reform effort will soon result in the publication 

of final, integrated ‘‘Business Leasing’’ regulations, including provisions which will, 

for the first time, implement the 1970 amendment to the Long-Term Leasing Act. 

The new rules will incorporate standards of review and review time lines for commercial leases, as well as standards of review for the assignments, subleases, and 

financing agreements entered into under such leases, which are generally subject 

to very strict ‘‘turnaround time’’ requirements. 

The process may be complicated in some locations. Land ownership patterns and 

market forces will vary greatly, and the tribal role in the process may be that of: 

(1) a co-owner; (2) the local regulator of development, with responsibility for both 

pre-lease and post-lease approvals and permitting; (3) the administrator of the BIA’s 

realty program under a 638 contract or self-governance compact; and/or (4) the lessee itself, via a tribal development enterprise. Whatever role(s) the Indian tribe may 

assume, the BIA and the Indian tribe will generally share the mutual goal of developing both tribal and allotted land to its highest and best use, on fair and reasonable terms consistent with the wishes of the landowners and the land use policies 

of the Indian tribe. 

To that end, BIA offices and Indian tribes with significant commercial land holdings should work together to:

1. standardize lease provisions (to the extent possible), integrate duplicative review procedures, and clarify pro-lease documentation requirements, so that any 

necessary BIA input occurs earlier, and final lease approval becomes more of 

a formality;

2. facilitate project financing and tenant subleases through the use of form documents and/or stipulated approvals, while protecting the economic interests of 

the landowners in the event of a default or the relinquishment or reversion of 

undeveloped property;

3. minimize the risk of nonperformance to the Indian owners, by requiring 

(prior to lease approval) that lessees provide business references, financial references, final statements, project pro formas, site plans, and limited guaranties 

or other forms of security;

4. identify the steps needed to comply (prior to lease approval) with applicable 

tribal and federal land use laws, including NEPA and the National Historic 

Preservation Act, and the extent to which ‘‘programmatic’’ NEPA documents 

might be used for planning purposes and then supplemented for individual 

projects;

5. establish basic criteria for the establishment of ’Minimum Rent’ for both improved and unimproved properties (including unimproved properties where adjustments must be made for offsite costs that will not be reimbursed, and improved properties where the terms of existing leases are being extended to facilitate new investment);

6. impose reasonable limits on the authority of owner-agents to consent on behalf of all of the owners (to assignments, subleases, etc.), and consider ways in 

which the arbitration remedy might be limited and/or defaults made subject to 

other negotiated remedies;

7. provide for the documentation and/or dedication of easements within leasehold projects, and eliminate obstacles to the establishment of offsite easements 

needed to provide access and utilities to new developments;

9

8. assemble development tracts (with permitted uses which are narrowly but 

reasonably defined) and develop broad-based marketing strategies, to increase 

the rental value of the land while at the same time furthering the Indian tribe’s 

land use goals;

9. promote meaningful owner participation in project revenues, through specific 

‘‘Additional Rent’’ structures/assumptions for various types of developments, 

and alternative forms of project ownership; and

10. provide for the aggressive enforcement of both monetary and non-monetary 

lease obligations, and the implementation of appropriate land records and lease 

management systems, to account for the use of the land and the income derived 

therefrom.

Distinctions can and should be made between the manner in which (and the 

terms on which) tribal and allotted land is leased, with the expectation being that 

those leases executed or approved by BIA on behalf of non-consenting individual 

owners will generally be subject to a higher standard. Comparisons should also be 

made between commercial leases of reservation lands and those involving neighboring lands administered by the states and cities. 

This concludes my testimony. I will be happy to answer any questions the Committee may have. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much. 

Let me try to understand what you just said. How does what you 

just said describe for me and the Committee the circumstance with 

the Gila River office building that has sat vacant for a year? 

Mr. ARTMAN. I think the Gila River office issue is probably a separate issue, separate in part from the fee-to-trust issues, the general fee-to-trust application issues. I think on the Gila River, there 

are some unique circumstances. There are quite a few allotments. 

Many of the allotments are under 10 acres, and many of the developments, and this may be one of them, are oftentimes 100 acres 

plus. 

In that case, we have to bring together the parties, rectify the 

needs of all, and come up with a lease that is satisfactory to all 

those parties. That may not be the case in this particular situation. 

I have had a number of conversations with the Gila River regarding fee-to-trust issues. Many of them recently have been on the 

right of way issues and the interaction they are having with the 

Superintendent in working out those issues. 

I will be happy to follow up with Mr. Rhodes and discuss the 

issue further with him and get back to the Committee on that. 

The CHAIRMAN. But you are aware that a building is sitting 

there, a brand new commercial building sitting there empty for 

over a year. I would think you would say, wait a second; let’s fix 

this in the next couple of months; let’s find out what is wrong and 

fix it. Is that not the case? 

Mr. ARTMAN. I agree with you, Senator. We will do that. 

The CHAIRMAN. You indicate that you don’t have an accurate 

tracking system, a fully accurate tracking system for taking lands 

into trust. Is that what you are describing, the applications to take 

land into trust? 

Mr. ARTMAN. That is correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. Why would there not be an accurate tracking 

system? Why would the agency not have a complete list of everything that is now pending? 

Mr. ARTMAN. That is a very good question, and I wish I could answer that. This was something that we discovered over the last few 

months. Even in preparation for the hearing, we had a number of 

10

different numbers that were floating around on what the number 

of applications were that we had on reservation. Those are regional 

numbers, and then how many we had for off-reservation, which 

should come into the central office. 

The problem that came up is that we can tell you that we have, 

for example, 37 non-gaming off-reservation applications at the central office. What I can’t tell you is where they are, because many 

times they are sent back to the region or sent back to the tribe for 

incompleteness. That is not a decent tracking system. That is not 

what we need to have. 

Now, expand that number out. That is just 37. Now, let’s take 

it out to 11 regions where we have fee-to-trust issues and put the 

number into the thousands. We have somewhere between 1,200 

and 1,300 applications for fee-to-trust in various stages of consideration. 

In the testimony, the numbers that you have I think are as accurate as we can possibly get them. They break down what different 

stages the many of the applications are in. The civil-ed numbers 

are going to add up to 1,211, which is the latest number I have in 

terms of the applications. 

One of the things that we started about four months ago was I 

asked some people to go out into the field, go out to the regions and 

look at how each region was doing their fee-to-trust. What were 

they using for the tracking system? What were they doing for the 

environmentals? How were they handling those issues? How was 

the communications with the local communities, how were those 

handled? 

What came back was a quilt work, at best, of different processes 

and applications that they use. If there are 11 regions, there are 

probably more tracking systems than that on just how many applications are in the process. One of the things that we hope to unveil 

in weeks is our handbook, which will create a consistency for how 

to take land into trust, which will have at least internal guidelines, 

internal deadlines and time lines that we well adhere to. 

Second, it will have the proper method for tracking this. Now, we 

have been consolidating a lot of our real estate matters on to a system called TAAMS. I don’t know if that is the proper system to follow, or if we should take advantage of what we call FTS, the feeto-trust tracking system. 

But in any case, the current system that we have is unacceptable. If I can’t turn to Chairman His Horse Is Thunder and say, 

this is how many I have from the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, and this is the exact place where they are from the central 

office, perhaps they can do that in the regional office, but we can’t 

do that from the central office as well. We don’t have the proper 

ability to measure, and if we can’t measure, we can’t gauge success. 

The CHAIRMAN. I don’t understand how we are at a point at the 

Interior Department and the BIA where we have 11 regions. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. ARTMAN. There are 12 regions; 11 that deal with fee-to-trust. 

The CHAIRMAN. We have 12 regions and we are not even sure 

whether each region is using the same approach? Are there no procedures or guidelines, and are they not audited so that you have 

the regions handling these issues the same way? 

11

Mr. ARTMAN. Well, two things. One, there has been a change in 

leadership. With that change in leadership, there has certainly 

been a new fervor to audit, as you say. Second, what we have found 

is that coast to coast there are different methods that are used by 

the different regions for handling the fee-to-trust issues, everything 

from what kind of an environmental standard from NEPA is required. 

The CHAIRMAN. Why is that the case? Why would there not be 

a standard that had been put out years ago from the central office 

to say, here is the way you handle these; here are the guidelines? 

Mr. ARTMAN. I think one of the issues is over the last 10 years, 

there have been 22 separate memos and guidelines that have been 

put out from what is now my office, giving direction on how one 

should—what environmental standard they should use, and there 

is even a contradictory one on that; to who should be handling offreservation; who should be handling on-reservation. I don’t blame 

the regions for having to pick up the ball and run with it. I think 

what you are seeing in the regions is certainly an entrepreneurial 

attitude towards fee-to-trust, and I certainly applaud them for that. 

What we need to do is grab that same fervor and coordinate and 

make consistent the processes that we use from coast to coast. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, but you know, we developed computers a 

few decades ago. It seems like gross incompetence to me that we 

don’t even know how many applications exist. I don’t know. Are the 

internal policies and guidelines, such as they are, available to the 

public and to the tribes so that we would know what those guidelines are? 

Mr. ARTMAN. We do have some that are made part of the departmental manual and those are certainly available. I am not sure if 

the other memos, the other internal memos are on the internet or 

not or on the department’s web site. Certainly, I would be happy 

to make those available. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think those policies should be available 

and guidelines should be available so that there is transparency 

here? 

Mr. ARTMAN. Well, certainly for the transparency’s sake, but I 

would hope in a matter of weeks that we are not going to need 

those available because I would like to be able to promulgate something that creates more consistency. 

The CHAIRMAN. There are 43 applications pending. Apparently, 

those are completed? 

Mr. ARTMAN. There are 37. 

The CHAIRMAN. Pardon me? 

Mr. ARTMAN. There are 37 off-reservation the last time I 

checked. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. And so how long would one expect for 

those to be waiting for a decision? All that is needed is a decision, 

is that correct? 

Mr. ARTMAN. No, not on all of those. Your number, 43, that was 

correct last week. As of yesterday when I was going through the 

numbers again, it changed to 37. And of those 37——

The CHAIRMAN. Wait, how does that happen? 

Mr. ARTMAN. That is a good question. I don’t know. 

The CHAIRMAN. You are in charge. 

12

Mr. ARTMAN. I agree with you, Senator, and this is one of the 

things——

The CHAIRMAN. I understand it is a good question. That is why 

I am asking it. How does it happen? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. ARTMAN. This is one of the problems that I am tackling and 

I am going to resolve. In peeling away the onions on this issue, and 

mind you, we started peeling away the layers of this onion months 

ago. These are a lot of the things that we are finding out. One of 

the things I had mentioned to your staff is that we have 800 applications, essentially, 790, because those are the latest numbers I 

had about a month ago. Yet, I am being told at different times that 

we have 1,200 and 1,300. 

The multiple tracking systems that we are using, the lack of consistent standards, is creating havoc for us, and that havoc creates 

havoc for the tribes as well. 

The CHAIRMAN. It is creating havoc for the tribes. It is creating 

incompetence for you. I don’t understand. You are there a short 

time, so you inherit what exists, but I don’t understand this at all. 

As I started looking last evening at the briefing materials for this, 

and dating back to earlier this year when I was at Gila River and 

looked at that building and thought, well, how on earth can this 

be? Somebody make a decision, for God’s sake. You build a building 

and the BIA says you need a master contract so you can’t get this 

done. 

Well, they say, do you have any acquaintance with the way the 

BIA works? I said, well, I have an acquaintance with the fact that 

we are paying money for a lot of employees. I know how it should 

work. It ought to be competent. 

I am just trying to understand. Tell me about staffing. I understand the Solicitor’s office is involved in a number of these processes. What is the staffing level over there? Do we have vacancies 

over there? Is that causing delays? 

Mr. ARTMAN. I think there are some vacancies, but in terms of 

are they causing delays, I am not sure the number of vacancies at 

the Solicitor’s office or whether or not they are causing delays. I 

would hope not. I think that it is well managed over there, and 

things get accomplished. 

On our own side, there are about 1,000 vacancies throughout the 

BIA at any given time, out of 10,000 employees. We have about 150 

to 200 vacancies in the trust area at any given time. 

The CHAIRMAN. How soon do you think you can fix this? In six 

months, do you think you can tell us that you have guidelines and 

specific procedures and every region is going to be employing the 

same guidelines and procedures, and that you are going to have an 

understanding of exactly how many applications exist, where they 

are in the process, what the tribes can expect with respect to service on these applications? 

I am not demanding that the Interior Department say yes or no, 

or demanding what the results should be. I am demanding that the 

Interior Department serve the interests here of making decisions 

on applications that are completed and filed in good faith. I think 

the system, very much like the system for which we hold hearings 

on the Cobell issue, I think the system is one that if I were a tribal 

13

leader trying to get something through it, I would say what on 

earth is going on. It just appears to be staggering incompetence. 

So can you in the next six months fix this so that we have something that is professional and something that we can look at and 

have our arms around and have some feeling that the tribes are 

going to be served in an appropriate way with respect to these applications? 

Mr. ARTMAN. Yes, we can, sir. As I mentioned before, this is 

something that we started months ago, fixing this problem, focusing on the on-reservation issues and how we can fix the whole system, the whole process. 

We are on the precipice of releasing that information and coming 

up with something cohesive that we can put out to the public and 

to our staff, so they can see what the consistent guidelines are and 

move forward. I will be sending out letters to not only the employees, but also to tribal leaders letting them know what is going on. 

So within that six month time frame, beginning, if you want to 

start that clock today, soon hereafter you are going to begin to see 

those results. I think in six months we will have a very different 

picture of what is happening. I think you will see a much better 

picture. 

In terms of knowing the number of applications out there and exactly where they are, short of putting myself out there saying I will 

hand count them myself, we will have accurate numbers for you in 

some way, shape or form. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Artman, one final point. I am going to submit a series of questions. I hope you can stay for just a bit. 

Mr. ARTMAN. Of course. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator McCain and I were enormously frustrated at previous hearings because after 17 years or so, there were 

no regulations that had been developed and put in place with respect to taking land into trust, with respect to off-reservation land 

for purposes of gaming. That is a very important issue. I am not 

a big fan of off-reservation gaming, but the fact is after all of these 

years there had been no regulations developed for that. We asked 

that there be regulations. We understand that they have been finalized. Can you tell us about that? 

Mr. ARTMAN. Sure. A number of weeks ago we made the decision, 

after reviewing the regulations, after the comments, the proposed 

regulations after the comments, that if we went final on what we 

had, there would be no additional need for comment or consultation 

because the change wasn’t great. So we have made that decision 

and now the regulations are making their way through the Department of Interior and will be sent over to OMB for review, and up 

to Capitol Hill for your review I believe in hopefully about 60 days. 

The CHAIRMAN. I will have additional questions, and if you would 

stay for a moment, I would appreciate that. 

Next, though, let’s hear from Ron His Horse Is Thunder. Ron is 

the Tribal Chair for the Standing Rock Sioux Indian Reservation 

at Fort Yates, North Dakota. Mr. Chairman, thank you for coming 

to Washington, D.C. today. We appreciate your attendance. Your 

entire statement will be made a part of the record. We would encourage you to summarize. Thank you very much. 

14

STATEMENT OF RON HIS HORSE IS THUNDER, CHAIRMAN, 

STANDING ROCK SIOUX TRIBE 

Mr. HIS HORSE IS THUNDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the invitation to come today. I will summarize my statement. 

I am going to touch upon three of the issues of the five that we 

are concerned about in terms of backlogs. Those three issues are 

land-to-trust, appraisals and probates. In the land-to-trust issue, 

the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe perspective on this, for the last 25 

years we have had absolutely no applications pass through from fee 

to trust, absolutely none. The tribe itself has over 10 applications 

currently pending, for a total of 19,000 acres. That land we currently pay taxes on to the State of South Dakota. We shouldn’t 

have to do that. 

There are no environmental concerns that we have been told 

about in terms of these lands. There have been no substantive objections by the county. These are agricultural lands. We already 

have a casino in North Dakota. We already have a casino in South 

Dakota. We are not asking for this land to build casinos on, so that 

is not an issue at all. 

So we are concerned about how long this application process 

takes, given that our tribe is in a position to buy additional land 

on our reservation. 

One of the real concerns for me, the tribe, although we don’t like 

having to pay the taxes, we can pay the taxes. My real concern 

with this is there are individual tribal members who have bought 

lots, small acreage, and built houses or bought houses that were on 

fee land. They have had their applications in for just as long as the 

tribe. I know that a couple of our tribal members have lost their 

homes, have lost their land to tax foreclosure sales. I know that 

has happened. That is what really concerns me about this. 

So I think there is lots of opportunity for success for the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs. In terms of appraisals, speaking from experience 

on this, my mother has been for the last year and a half trying to 

consolidate some small acreages of land. I mean, that is the whole 

concern about Indian Country is fractionalization of lands. Standing Rock Sioux Tribe has the most fractionated interests of any 

tribe in this Country. In my mother’s case and other cases of our 

tribal members, in terms of trying to consolidate their lands, it is 

a big issue for us. 

She has had her application in for over a year and a half. She 

recently asked me to check on it, and I said, Mom, they haven’t 

even done the appraisals yet. She says, well, son, you are the 

Chairman. Can’t you get something done? And I said, Mom, I can 

only push them so fast. They haven’t even done the appraisal. They 

haven’t even gone out to the land to do the appraisal, much less 

walked it. 

My own transfer of land, I transferred 40 acres for 40 acres. It 

wasn’t even a consolidation. I took 40 acres of my own land and 

traded for 40 acres of tribe land. It took me over a year to get that 

done, and I am the Chairman. Not that I have any special status 

over anybody else, but I can call the Superintendent on a daily 

basis. So that is a problem. 

15

Probates. Again, speaking from experience here, I talked to my 

mom on this. My grandfather passed away 10 years ago. It took 

over a year to get the probate done. My grandmother passed away 

about 16 years ago. It took over a year to get the probate done. 

What concerns me about this for tribal members is not only the 

time, but the places they have to go to hear the probates. My 

grandfather was enrolled at the Cheyenne River Reservation. They 

had to probate on Standing Rock, 105 miles away. 

My grandmother was enrolled in the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. 

Her probate was heard on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, 300 

miles away. When asked why they had to go to Pine Ridge when 

she was enrolled in Standing Rock, they said, well, if you want to 

wait a few more years, we will have it on Standing Rock. 

I have an elder who passed away about seven months ago. There 

is no hearing scheduled for that one as well. 

Now, there is a new concern for us, and that is that we used to 

have a Bismarck office for probates. They moved it to Rapid City 

a couple years back. Now, we are being told they are moving it to 

Billings, Montana. That is more than 500 miles away from my people. They have done this, this moving and closing of offices, without 

any consultation to the tribes, so that concerns us. 

Currently, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe has a backlog of 203 probates officially, officially, according to the Office of Hearings and 

Appeals. But the Bureau of Indian Affairs itself tells us you can 

add another 100 onto the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. In the Great 

Plains region alone, we have over 1,399 cases that are pending at 

this point in time. 

What really exacerbates the problem is that the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs will no longer house wills made by our tribal members. 

That just creates a worse problem, especially if we are talking 

about consolidation of lands, et cetera, and backlog of cases. 

I see that my time is up, Senator. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. His Horse Is Thunder follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RON HIS HORSE IS THUNDER, CHAIRMAN, STANDING ROCK

SIOUX TRIBE

My name is Ron His Horse is Thunder. I am Chairman of the Standing Rock 

Sioux Tribe of North and South Dakota. I want to thank the Committee for the opportunity to present testimony at this important hearing. 

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe like many Tribes throughout the United States 

is suffering real and enduring damage from the failure of this Department of the 

Interior to do what it should do as a matter of course. The record of this hearing 

will reflect that throughout Indian county leases are not getting approved, Rights 

of Way are not being granted, land is not being taken into trust, estates are not 

being probated, and new trust lands are not being proclaimed as reservations. These 

individual failures represent the Department’s inability to exercise the most basic 

of its trust responsibilities to Tribes and Indian people. This responsibility is most 

clearly defined in the Indian Reorganization Act. It is the promise of this Act, which 

serves as the foundation for today’s self-determination policy, which is being severally undermined by the backlog and delays that the Committee will hear about 

today and which will be part of the record for this hearing. 

The Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) was one of the most important pieces of Indian legislation in American history. Based in considerable measure on the findings 

of the Meriam Report, the IRA altered the basic thrust of the allotment policy that 

immediately preceded it. Where the allotment policy sought to remove lands from 

the Indians, and destroy tribal life and institutions, the IRA sought to rebuild the 

reservations and the tribes, and to provide new opportunities for economic growth 

and self government on the reservations. 

16

1Letter to Honorable Burton K. Wheeler, April 28, 1934, Sen. Rep. No. 1080, 73rd Cong. 2d 

Sess. 3 (1934). 

As the Supreme Court observed in Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676, 691 (1990): ‘‘[t]he 

60 years preceding the Act [IRA] had witnessed a calculated policy favoring elimination of tribal institutions, sale of tribal lands, and assimilation of Indians as individuals into the dominant culture.’’ Proposed initially by the Roosevelt Administration to change that sorry history, the IRA was personally supported by President 

Franklin D. Roosevelt as ‘‘embod(ying) the basic and broad principles of the administration for a new standard of dealing between the Federal Government and its Indian wards.’’ 1 As the U.S. Supreme Court observed in Mescalero Apache Tribe v. 

Jones, 411 U..S.. 145, 152 (1973), quoting H..R. Rep. No. 1804, 73rd Cong., 2d Sess. 

1 (1934), the IRA was intended ‘‘’to rehabilitate the Indian’s economic life and to 

give him a chance to develop the initiative destroyed by a century of oppression and 

paternalism.’’’ The Court has also held that ‘‘[t]he overriding purpose of. ..[the IRA] 

was to establish machinery whereby Indian tribes would be able to assume a greater degree of self-government, both politically and economically.’’ Morton v. Mancari,

417 U.S. 535, 542 (1974). 

During the consideration of this Act, Representative Howard of Nebraska, Chairman of the House Indian Affairs Committee pointed out, a chief cause of the decline 

suffered by the Indians had been the policy of the General Allotment Act. Accordingly, the chief purpose of the IRA was to eradicate the effect of that Act. To reverse 

the allotment policy and permit the rebuilding of tribal land holdings, the IRA contains what remains today the principal statute authorizing the Secretary to acquire 

lands in trust for a tribe or individual Indian, Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA), 25 U.S.C. 465. 

Through the past six decades, both Republican and Democratic Administrations 

have used Section 465 to further the purposes of the IRA to benefit Indian tribes 

and individual Indians. Unfortunately, we have now encountered a Department that 

for reasons that have yet to be explained to me has determined that it will no longer 

move forward with the policy of the IRA. A fear held by some in Indian country is 

that the Department has determined that any action that it is asked to take for the 

benefit of tribes or Indian people must first be weighed against other concerns unrelated and in some instances completely contrary to the interest of Tribes. I have 

heard repeatedly that the decisions before the Department must balanced against 

other considerations. All too often these ‘‘other considerations’’ prevail and the interests of the tribes remain unfulfilled. This balancing process has paralyzed the Department’s exercise of its trust responsibility . 

The balancing makes me ask the following question. Has the Department concluded that the United States has fulfilled its mandate under the IRA and that the 

Department believes it no longer has an over arching responsibility to improve the 

status and conditions of Indian country? To be clear, the mandate has not been met 

at Standing Rock. Nor has it been met on most Reservations. As you well know, 

the health and social conditions and needs on my Reservation and many throughout 

Indian country are staggering. If the Department is failing Indian tribes with regard 

to trust acquisitions, probate and land appraisals—work it has been doing for over 

150 years, how can Tribes trust the Department to work with us to solve the problems that tribes face in the 21st Century. I will address the two primary topics of 

to day’s hearing. 

1. Land Into Trust 

The most basic promise of land restoration has not been fulfilled by the IRA. As 

a result of the allotment policy, at Standing Rock we lost more than one million 

acres of land to non-Indian allotment. Today, the Tribe retains trust title to only 

300,000 acres of our original 2.3 million acre reservation. Our tribal members hold 

approximately another 500,000 acres of land in trust allotments. The remainder of 

our reservation is held in fee. 

In the last 25 years, no lands at Standing Rock have been taken into trust for 

the benefit of the Tribe. Today at Standing Rock we have ten applications for land 

to be taken into trust for the benefit of the Tribe, totaling just over 19,000 acres 

of land. Some of these applications have been pending since 1992. These applications concern lands that were once reserved for the Tribe’s exclusive use. Most of 

this land is intended to enhance the Tribe’s agricultural and livestock programs. 

There are no environmental concerns and no substantive objections from any party. 

These are the exact type of the lands that under the Indian Reorganization Act, the 

Department should be returning to trust as a matter of regular course. Yet, it has 

not happened. 

17

2. Probate 

Another fundamental area where the Department’s inexplicable delays cause both 

economic and emotional hardship is in the area of probate. How can Tribes and families properly manage their realty if it is stuck in prolonged probate and sitting idle? 

While the United States has been probating Indian trust estates for many years, 

it seems that with each passing year and with each new Department initiative, the 

process gets worse. Indian families, who wish nothing more than to bring closure 

to the death of their loved one, do not get closure. What they get are delays, excuses, and on-going frustration. Allotted Tribal lands, that could be leased out for 

grazing or agriculture, or other productive uses, sit idle, and generate no income to 

the Indian family. 

The Bureau’s probate regulations require Federal officials to perform four tasks: 

(1) find out about a Native person’s death; (2) prepare a probate package; (3) refer 

the completed package to the Office of Hearing and Appeals; and (4) require a ‘‘deciding official’’ to determine how to distribute the property and/or funds deposited 

in an Individual Indian Money account and make the distribution. 25 CFR Part 

15.4. 

Sounds pretty straight forward. In reality, it is a nightmare. At Standing Rock, 

we are informed by Bureau officials that there is a backlog of 203 probate cases 

awaiting resolution. In the Great Plains Region, we are told the probate backlog 

stands at 1,399 (one thousand three hundred ninety-nine). Standing Rock Agency 

officials have informed our Tribe that the Office of Hearing and Appeals does not 

want to receive any more probate applications because of their current backlog. 

Tribal officials have stated that there are an additional 100 probate cases to add 

to the 203. 

What I do not understand is the lack of notice to the Tribal family. Families wait 

years for resolution, with no certainty that anyone at the Bureau is actively working 

on the probate package and referring it to OHA, or that an OHA deciding official 

is actively reviewing the file. 

The Secretary of the Interior’s duties are to probate trust or restricted property 

held in the estate of an Indian decedent. I hear so much about the Federal Government’s trust responsibility to the Indian people. But as Chairman, I so seldom see 

it practiced. 

To make matters worse, Bureau officials announced several years ago that their 

offices could no longer be the repository for the wills of Tribal members and that 

individuals would have to make other arrangements for the safekeeping of their 

wills. One of the required elements of the probate package which the regulations 

require to be provided to the Bureau includes ‘‘all originals or copies of wills and 

codicils, and any revocations.’’ 25 CFR 15.104(8). The trustee’s action has the effect 

of making their own job more difficult by refusing to be the repository for the decedent’s last will and testament. 

The Great Plains Tribal Chairman’s Association learned last week from Bureau 

officials at the Rapid City OHA office that they have been instructed to close that 

facility and move to Billings, Montana. Billings, Montana is about 430 miles from 

our Administration offices at Fort Yates. The Tribal Chairman’s Association passed 

a resolution objecting to the move, a decision made without Tribal consultation. We 

fear that the Department does not understand that the changes it makes to achieve 

some perceived notion of efficiency and streamlining, in fact achieve the opposite result of unnecessary delays and added costs to Indian people and the Tribe. 

Instead of closing offices and moving staff, the Bureau should devote its resources 

to help Tribal families establish life estates and family trusts that avoid the need 

for probate. The Bureau should assist Indians to purchase fractionated interests so 

that trust or allotted lands are put to use and generate income for Indian families. 

Rather than helping to solve chronic problems that plague our reservations through 

innovative and creative solutions, the Bureau perpetuates problems and contributes 

to the common view in Indian country that the system is broken, and the common 

lament that no one should bother trying to fix it, because no one really cares. 

I would like to thank the Committee again for the opportunity to testify and 

would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for your 

testimony. We appreciate hearing from you today. 

Next, we will hear from the Honorable William Rhodes, Governor 

of the Gila River Indian Community in Sacaton, Arizona. 

Chairman Rhodes, thank you. 

18

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM R. RHODES, GOVERNOR, GILA RIVER 

INDIAN COMMUNITY 

Mr. RHODES. Thank you, Chairman Dorgan and other Committee 

members for the opportunity to testify regarding the impact of BIA 

delays on tribal economic development. 

The Gila River Indian Community is the largest Indian community in the Phoenix metropolitan area, with enrolled population of 

over 19,000. Over the years, the community has experienced BIA 

delays in a number of areas that have detrimentally impacted the 

community’s economic development initiatives. Of particular concern, the community has experienced significant delays in obtaining BIA approvals of leases of tribal land. The community’s reservation is located in the very rapidly growing Phoenix metropolitan region, and in many instances its tribal business ventures compete with non-commercial entities that are sometimes literally 

across the street from the reservations. 

When the community faces bureaucratic challenges at BIA that 

affect the operation of its tribal business ventures, it puts the tribe 

at a disadvantage compared to the entities not subject to BIA leasing oversight. Specifically, the community is concerned with the 

BIA’s imposition of unnecessary regulatory burdens in the review 

and approval of commercial leases of space within the existing tribal buildings. BIA’s position evidences a clear lack of understanding 

of the competitive and time-sensitive commercial leasing market in 

which the community seeks to compete for tenants. 

The community has also encountered problems associated with 

the BIA’s failure to properly document rights of ways throughout 

the reservation, which have impacted the community’s business 

agreements and land management planning. Additionally, the community has experienced BIA delays regarding approvals of leases 

associated with the community’s land acquisition process such as 

the community’s efforts to acquire allotted lands within the reservation are frustrated. 

The community has been in protracted discussions with the BIA 

lasting over a year regarding a master lease between the community and the wholly owned governmental department authority created by the community to develop a large land parcel. Each month 

the master lease remains pending at BIA, the development authority cannot sublease the land under the master lease, and a proposed business park and retail development has no tenants. 

The community is concerned that the BIA has taken the position 

on the master lease that the community must conduct an environmental impact statement for all the land under the master lease. 

The community has already conducted the necessary environmental assessments for a majority of the land that would be subleased under the master lease, and the EIS would take more than 

18 months to complete, given the BIA’s delays on EIS review as 

well. 

It is hard for the community to understand why the BIA would 

impose these additional requirements on a simple ground lease between the two entities, especially when the community has already 

conducted EA’s for the land to be developed under the master 

lease. Moreover, the community is concerned with the overly bureaucratic position taken by the BIA with regard to the agency’s reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:40 Feb 06, 2008 Jkt 039675 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\39675.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
19

sponsibility to review and approve commercial leases of space within already existing buildings. As an example, the community has 

built a corporate center, which you viewed earlier at the beginning 

of the session, for the authority to lease office space to third party 

tenants, to draw the potential business partners and raise lease 

revenue. 

At first, the existing office building parcel was contained under 

a master lease pending at BIA. Then the community revised the 

master lease to remove the office building to expedite leasing of the 

office space. However, since then, BIA has sought to employ the 

regulation at 25 CFR Part 162 for the commercial leases of office 

space. These regulations are designed to protect tribes and allottees 

from onerous land deals. BIA is using these regulations to impose 

a variety of requirements, including mortgage-related and lease 

value requirements, that appear to us to be unrelated to an office 

building and leasing of commercial office space. 

In an era when tribes are directly competing with non-Indian offreservation businesses and developments for commercial tenants 

and developments, these regulations and regulatory burdens imposed by the BIA place Indian tribes at a serious disadvantage 

with non-Indian competitors. With respect to this office building, 

office space has stood empty for too long. 

A solution is for BIA to work with us as a proactive partner, as 

we do with all our other business partners, by taking the time to 

understand our short- and long-term economic goals. BIA should be 

working with us to ensure a streamlined lease review process that 

more accurately reflects the lease market in which we operate that 

avoids delays based on unnecessary regulatory barriers. 

My time is up, Senator. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rhodes follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM R. RHODES, GOVERNOR, GILA RIVER INDIAN

COMMUNITY

Introduction 

I am Governor William Rhodes of the Gila River Indian Community (the ‘‘Community’’). On behalf of the Community, I want to thank you, Chairman Dorgan and 

other distinguished Members of the Committee for this opportunity to submit written testimony on the impact of Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) administrative delays 

on tribal economic development. 

By way of introduction, the Gila River Indian Community was formally established by Executive Order in 1859. The Community was thereafter expanded several 

times and currently encompasses approximately 375,000 acres. The Community is 

comprised of the Akimel O’odham (Pima) and the Pee Posh (Maricopa) people. We 

are the largest Indian Community in the Phoenix metropolitan area, with an enrolled population of over 19,000. We have a long history in the Phoenix Valley, dating back thousands of years. 

Over the years, the Community has experienced BIA delays in a number of areas 

that have detrimentally impacted the Community’s economic development initiatives. Of particular concern to this hearing, the Community has experienced significant delays in obtaining BIA approvals of leases of tribal land. These delays result 

in lost economic opportunities to the Community in situations in which potential development or tenant deals are never culminated and in which the Community does 

not realize lease revenues for months while lease agreements are pending BIA approval. It is important at the outset for the Committee to note that the Community’s 

reservation is located in the very rapidly growing Phoenix metropolitan region and, 

in many instances, its tribal business ventures compete with non-Indian commercial 

entities that are sometimes literally located across the street from the reservation. 

Therefore, when the Community faces bureaucratic challenges at BIA that affect the 

operation of its tribal business ventures, it puts the tribe at a competitive disadvanVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:40 Feb 06, 2008 Jkt 039675 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\39675.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
20

tage compared to entities not subject to BIA leasing oversight. Although the Department of Interior is supposed to support the policy of tribal economic development, 

our competitors only gain from the BIA lease approval delays we experience. 

As described below, the Community is particularly concerned with the BIA’s imposition of unnecessary regulatory burdens in the review and approval of commercial 

leases of space within existing tribal buildings—bureaucratically-created, anachronistic burdens that evidence a clear lack of understanding of the competitive and 

time-sensitive commercial leasing market in which the Community seeks to compete 

for tenants. The Community has also encountered problems associated with the 

BIA’s failure to properly document rights-of-way throughout the Gila River Indian 

Reservation which have impacted the Community’s business agreements and land 

management planning. Additionally, the Community has experienced considerable 

BIA delays in relation to approval of appraisals associated with the Community’s 

land acquisition process, such that the Community’s efforts to acquire allotted lands 

within the Community’s Reservation are frustrated. 

This testimony focuses on specific areas where the Community has seen firsthand 

the impact of BIA delays on its tribal economic development. This testimony also 

proposes some short-term and long-term solutions for addressing the issues identified. These delays, as described below, impact delivery of a variety of BIA services 

to the Community to such an extent that the quality of the trust relationship between BIA and the Community is being negatively affected. 

I. BIA Review of Commercial Leases 

A. Master Ground Lease Approval Delays 

The Community has suffered from the ramifications of BIA delays with respect 

to its commercial leases on a number of occasions. As an illustrative example, the 

Community has been in protracted discussions with the BIA lasting over a year now 

regarding a Master Lease between the Community and a wholly owned governmental Development Authority created by the Community to develop a 2,400 acre 

parcel. The Master Lease is a ground lease for development of a parcel of land that 

will allow the Development Authority to sublease land to tenants for an industrial 

park and retail establishments, among other uses. Each month the Master Lease 

remains pending at BIA, the Development Authority cannot sublease the land under 

the Master Lease and a proposed business park and retail development have no tenants. 

The Master Lease is valuable to the Community and the Development Authority 

because it will help attract non-Indian business tenants and potential business partners to the reservation and generate significant lease revenues. Unfortunately, the 

Master Lease approval process has been pending over a year and has become mired 

in unnecessary bureaucratic delay that is impacting the Community’s economic development plans. The Community is particularly concerned that the BIA has taken 

the position on the Master Lease that the Community must conduct an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for all the land under the Master Lease. The Community has already conducted the necessary Environmental Assessments (EAs) for 

a majority of the land that would be subleased under the Master Lease and the EIS 

will take more than 18 months to complete given the BIA’s delays on EIS review 

as well. 

It is hard for the Community to fathom why the BIA would impose this additional 

requirement on a simple ground lease between two tribal entities, especially when 

the Community has already conducted EAs for the land to be developed under the 

Master Lease. Because the BIA has held up approval of the Master Lease for so 

long, the Community has had to restructure several tribal commercial projects within the proposed lease to avoid significant delays and escalating project costs, and 

may have to ultimately restructure its long-term development plans for these parcels to avoid unnecessary delays. 

B. Office Suite Leases 

Moreover, the Community is increasingly concerned with the overly bureaucratic 

positions taken by the BIA with regard to the agency’s responsibility to review and 

approve commercial leases of space within already existing buildings. BIA has 

sought to employ the regulations at 25 CFR Part 162 in reviewing commercial 

leases of office space. These regulations are designed to protect tribes and allottees 

from onerous land deals. BIA is using these regulations to impose a variety of requirements, including mortgage-related and lease value requirements, that appear 

to us to be unrelated to an office building and leasing of commercial office space. 

Mortgage insurance related requirements have no bearing on a tribally financed office building that is not carrying bank mortgage. 

21

As one example, the Community constructed a corporate office building on reservation that was sited on land originally included in the Master Lease pending review at BIA, discussed above. Due to the significant delays being experienced at BIA 

regarding approval of that Master Lease, the Community restructured the scope of 

the Master Lease to exclude the parcel on which the commercial office space is located in the interest of expediting the Community’s ability to lease out that office 

space separate from the Master Lease. Subsequently, BIA took the position that the 

commercial space within that building was subject to a variety of BIA lease approval requirements including mortgage related requirements. The Community 

views the BIA’s perceived responsibility to review and approve commercial leases of 

space within existing buildings to be an anachronistic throw-back to the days of the 

Indian agent. 

The Community, like many Indian tribes across the country, no longer needs the 

safety net of having the BIA review and approve commercial leases and ground 

leases of Community lands—including leases of individual office suites. The Community has employed or engaged highly trained professionals to represent its interests in development deals and has successfully negotiated a wide range of commercial transactions without the need for Federal bureaucrats to look over the Community’s shoulder and micromanage individual office suite leases. These BIA regulations serve as a significant impediment to the successful negotiation and execution 

of commercial leases in today’s business climate. In an era where Indian tribes are 

directly competing with non-Indian (off-reservation) businesses and developments 

for commercial tenants and developments, these regulations and the regulatory burdens imposed by the BIA place Indian tribes at a serious disadvantage with nonIndian competitors. We do not understand the BIA’s rationale for requiring an EIS 

for our Master Lease and its overly bureaucratic approach to the Community’s efforts to lease office space within an existing office building. With respect to the office 

building discussed above, the Community has been forced to find Community entities to begin to fill the office space, and its efforts to find third-party tenants has 

been delayed and hindered. 

The ironic thing about BIA’s current posture is that in the past they have allowed 

lease terms that were unfavorable to the Community, particularly in the Community’s industrial parks where the BIA allowed long term leases (60+ years) with poor 

economic terms, and with industrial tenants who are engaged in noxious activities, 

including bio-hazard wastes, solvent recycling, munitions testing, which have caused 

significant environmental harm to the Community. It seems untenable to us that 

now, when a large portion of a commercial office building space remains empty, the 

BIA would start to raise a variety of unrelated lease requirements that hinder our 

ability to lease out the space. 

Proposed Solution: With regard to the BIA delays on lease reviews, the solution 

is for BIA to work with us a pro-active partner, as we do with all of our other business partners. By taking the time to understand our short and long term economic 

goals, BIA should be working with us to ensure a streamlined lease review process 

that more accurately reflects the lease market in which we operate and that avoids 

delay based on arbitrary, unjustified and unnecessary regulatory barriers. The other 

solution is to grant tribes the authority to review and approve ground leases in their 

governmental capacity and for BIA to facilitate, through technical assistance or 

other means, increased tribal responsibility for lease approvals. 

II. BIA Documentation of Rights-of-Way 

Another area of continuing concern is the failure of the BIA to properly document 

rights-of-way throughout the Gila River Indian Reservation. By way of example, the 

Community has established the Gila River Indian Community Utility Authority 

(GRICUA) to provide electrical service throughout the Reservation. Currently, 

GRICUA serves a small number of residential customers and a growing number of 

commercial customers on the reservation. The San Carlos Irrigation Project (SCIP) 

serves the vast majority of customers, residential and commercial, on the reservation. In its efforts to analyze the SCIP facilities, GRICUA has made repeated requests for information related to the condition of SCIP facilities on the Reservation 

without success. Moreover, it is unclear whether the BIA or SCIP have properly recorded rights-of-way underlying the SCIP electric and irrigation systems throughout 

the Reservation. This became a serious concern when the Community and GRICUA 

analyzed whether to submit a proposal in response to the currently pending FAIR 

Act solicitation where BIA intends to privatize SCIP irrigation and electric operations. Without proper rights-of-way across tribal and allotted lands, any operator 

of the SCIP system could be in an immediate trespass situation. To date, SCIP and 

BIA have not provided any of the requested information to assist the Community 

and GRICUA in evaluating the on-reservation SCIP system rights of way. 

22

Proposed Solution: BIA needs to act as a trustee in assisting the Community with 

resolving rights of way issues in the manner necessary for the Community to be 

able to proceed with its land management and development plans and to react in 

a timely manner to the rapid and pressing development occurring along reservation 

borders. We understand the Committee may be considering a hearing on Rights of 

Way issues in Indian Country. The Community would be very interested in testifying at such a hearing and proposing at that time some solutions to these overarching issues affecting Indian Country. 

III. BIA Preparation of Appraisals for Land Acquisition Purposes 

In addition to BIA delays associated with commercial leases and rights-of-ways, 

the Community has also seen BIA delays in connection with its land acquisition efforts. Gila River Indian Community was chosen as one of the first tribes to participate in the Department of Interior’s Indian Land Consolidation pilot project. The 

Community was chosen because of the very high rate of fractionated land within 

the Reservation. After 3 years under the ILCA pilot project, the Department pulled 

out of land consolidation efforts at the Community, citing the high cost of acquiring 

land in the Phoenix region. Since being removed from the ILCA pilot project, the 

Community has established its own land consolidation program, but has encountered roadblocks in its self-funded effort posed by BIA delays in issuing land value 

appraisals. As a result, despite the Department’s keen interest in assisting tribes 

with consolidating their fractionated land base and the fact that the Community is 

now self-financing the entire land acquisition program, BIA delays are again frustrating an important policy and economic development objective of the Department 

and the Community. 

A. Land Acquisition Process 

On April 19, 2006, the Gila River Indian Community Council (the ‘‘Community 

Council’’) approved GR–51–06 which enacted the Community’s Land Acquisition Policy (the ‘‘Policy’’). The Policy outlines a process through which the Community may 

acquire whole allotments of land within the Reservation owned by Community members or other Indians to prevent the transfer of allotted land within the Reservation 

to fee status, so that such land is preserved as Federal Indian trust land. Under 

the Policy, the Community may also consider land exchanges at the request of a 

landowner. Prior to the enactment of the Policy, the Community Council enacted 

GR–184–04 which established a Land Acquisition Trust Fund (the ‘‘Fund’’) to be 

used for Community land purchases intended for governmental use and purposes 

and for costs and expenses associated with land acquisitions. The Community Council appropriated millions of dollars to the fund as an initial capital appropriation to 

the Fund. The Community Council may make subsequent transfers to the Fund as 

deemed appropriate. 

Briefly, the process for land acquisition under the Policy is as follows:

(1) upon receipt of a Landowner’s completed application, BIA forwards the application to the Executive Office, who then transmits the application to the Law 

Office and the Department of Land Use Planning and Zoning (LUPZ);

(2) the Law Office acknowledges receipt of the application and requests an appraisal, title status report, and survey from the BIA and the U.S. Department 

of Interior’s Office of the Special Trustee (OST);

(3) pursuant to the Policy, LUPZ gathers data about the allotment which will 

form the basis for a Report and Recommendation for Purchase to the Community Council;

(4) upon a Landowner’s receipt of appraisal from BIA, the Law Office and LUPZ 

staff meet with the Landowner to obtain a copy of the appraisal;

(5) LUPZ and Law Office arrange to inform the districts and the Community’s 

Planning and Zoning Commission of the potential land purchase at their respective regularly scheduled meetings; and

(6) the Law Office and LUPZ prepare a Report and Recommendation and sale 

documents for Natural Resources Standing Committee and the Community 

Council for its consideration and approval.

B. BIA Delays with Appraisals 

The Department of Interior’s Office of the Special Trustee (OST), Office of Appraisal Services (OAS) prepares all of the appraisals of the allotments to be considered for purchase by the Community. Initially, the Community was informed by BIA 

that appraisals would be completed in ninety (90) days. However, it became apparent in late summer 2006 that in several cases, the ninety (90) day period was not 

23

being met. On August 25, 2006, LUPZ and Law Office staff met with the BIA Superintendent to discuss how the appraisal process could be expedited. 

At that time, the Community was assured by BIA that appraisals would be completed three (3) weeks after receipt of the request from the BIA. To their credit, the 

BIA also has made some changes in staffing to accommodate the requests they are 

receiving from Landowners. Despite their good intentions, however, only a handful 

of Landowners have received appraisals. 

As a followup to the August 25, 2006 meeting, in December 2006, representatives 

from LUPZ and the Law Office met with Pima Agency, OAS and the Deputy Director, Appraisal Branch, BIA, to discuss utilizing market analyses in lieu of appraisals 

for purchase of fractionated interests of land only. It was understood at that time 

that OAS would be hiring a contractor to perform the market analyses, and that 

the Community would not be receiving market analyses until after March 2007. 

However, the Community has not yet received a market analysis in lieu of an appraisal. 

The Community’s June 2007 review of appraisals received revealed that about 18 

landowners received appraisals completed by OAS. The Community’s review also indicated that of the 18 landowners that received appraisals, 15 landowners contacted 

the Community to proceed with possible land purchases. Furthermore, the same review also revealed that the longest and shortest amounts of time from the Community’s written request to landowner receipt of appraisal was approximately sixteen 

(16) and seven (7) months, respectively. 

Seven to sixteen months is an inordinately lengthy amount of time to complete 

appraisals in a rapidly changing market, and the amount of time taken to receive 

an appraisal is the single activity that takes the most time to complete in the Community’s land acquisition process. 

C. BIA Miscommunication to Landowners 

In June 2007, it came to the Community’s attention that Pima Agency was informing allottees that the Community lacked funds to purchase land under the Policy. Pima Agency’s misstatements appear to stem from its misunderstanding regarding completed appraisals and their effect, if any, on the Fund and the Community’s 

ability to purchase land under the Policy. Pima Agency requested the Community 

to provide a resolution stating that ‘‘GRIC is interested in purchasing the remaining 

landowner’s interests and that funding is available for further acquisitions.’’ Apparently, Pima Agency’s request seemed to imply that the approximate total dollar 

value of land appraised at that time, $14 Million Dollars, exceeded the Community’s 

initial appropriation to the Fund, which Pima Agency believed rendered the Community financially incapable of purchasing land under the Policy. Based on this misunderstanding, Pima Agency was not processing the Community’s requests for appraisals. For several reasons, Pima Agency’s assumptions and conclusions were incorrect, and the Community responded to Pima Agency by letter dated June 25, 

2007. 

D. BIA Use of Purchase Agreement and Delay of Closing 

Prior to the Community’s enactment of the Policy, the Community purchased allotted land using a Purchase Agreement to which BIA was a party and signatory. 

The Purchase Agreement was utilized by the Community, BIA and a landowner in 

spring 2006 when the Community purchased ten (10) acres. Based on precedent, 

and after the enactment of the Policy, in January 2007, the Community utilized the 

same Purchase Agreement when concluding the purchase of twenty (20) acres. 

Abruptly and without notice, and despite being fully aware in advance that the 

Community would be purchasing the twenty acres, BIA declared that it could not 

be a party to the Purchase Agreement. BIA’s abrupt change of position was not communicated to nor anticipated by the Community, and resulted in a two (2) month 

delay in concluding the purchase while the Community and Pima Agency developed 

a mutually acceptable procedure for concluding future land purchases that did not 

include BIA as a party to Purchase Agreements. 

E. Landowners’ Applications for Sale of Land 

Until approximately 2 weeks ago, when the Community received notice from the 

BIA that a landowner wanted to sell land to the Community, BIA would inform the 

Community by letter of a landowners’ interest to sell, and included a copy of the 

completed land sale application and an allotment sheet describing all of a landowner’s interests. Recently, the Community received only cover letters and allotment sheets, but not landowners’ applications. Believing the lack of applications was 

an oversight, the Community telephoned Pima Agency, requesting the missing applications. Pima Agency informed the Community that BIA would no longer be proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:40 Feb 06, 2008 Jkt 039675 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\39675.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
24

viding the Community with landowners’ applications for sale of land, citing privacy 

concerns. 

Prior to not receiving the applications, the Community was not made aware of 

BIA’s decision to not provide the Community with copies of the applications. While 

BIA’s concerns may have some merit, the landowners’ applications are the only documents the Community will have that are completed by the landowners themselves 

and in which they indicate the allotments or portions thereof that they want to sell 

to the Community. As a buyer in a negotiated sale, it is completely reasonable for 

the Community to have a copy of the landowners’ applications to verify exactly what 

land the landowners have an interest in and what they want to sell. Arguably, by 

completing an application for sale of their land to the Community, the landowners 

have provided implied consent to providing the necessary information to the Community. And, if there is personal information contained in the applications that BIA 

or landowners do not want to be disclosed and that is not necessary to proceed with 

the sale, such information can be redacted. The Community is preparing a formal 

request to Pima Agency to provide copies of the landowners’ applications. 

Proposed Solution: As discussed above, BIA needs to work as a partner with the 

Community and better understand the Community’s long term goals, rather than 

presenting obstacles to the Community’s land acquisition efforts. By spreading inaccurate information about the Community’s ability to purchase interest in land, failing to keep the Community informed about landowner purchase applications, and 

by abruptly making changes in land acquisition policy at BIA, the BIA has impeded 

rather than assisted the Community’s important land acquisition goals. As a specific 

matter, BIA could assist the Community by facilitating the preparation of market 

analyses in lieu of appraisals for purchase of fractionated interests in land, which 

worked well when the Community was an active participant in the ILCA program 

and would avoid the BIA appraisal delay issue. Unfortunately, the Community has 

made this request but has yet to receive a market analysis in lieu of an appraisal. 

Conclusion 

This testimony has attempted to provide the Committee with several examples of 

areas in which the Community has experienced shifting and overly bureaucratic 

policies of the BIA that have negatively affected the Community’s economic development planning. We believe this story speaks more largely, however, to a breakdown 

in the trustee’s relationship with tribes as BIA moves from helping to facilitate tribal initiatives to instead posing as an obstacle to tribal development objectives. The 

Community spends more personnel time in interaction with BIA, often 

confrontational, than it spends with any other entity with which it conducts business. Some proposed immediate solutions have been included above. However, 

longer term solutions must include providing tribes a larger and more active role 

in controlling their land base and providing for governmental approvals in use of 

tribal lands. We understand that it is no solution to simply complain about our relationship with BIA—that would be too easy. Instead, we look forward to working 

with Committee staff on a longer-term initiative to develop ideas to address these 

important issues, including the development of legislation and policies that facilitate 

the broader goal of sovereignty for tribes that keeps pace with tribal economic development goals and the competing development surrounding tribal lands. 

Thank you, distinguished Members of the Committee, and we stand ready to answer any additional questions you may have about this testimony or to supply any 

additional information for the written record.

The CHAIRMAN. Governor Rhodes, thank you very much. Again, 

we appreciate your traveling to Washington, D.C. to provide the 

testimony. 

Next, we will hear from Frank Bigelow, Supervisor of the 

Madera County Board of Supervisors, Madera, California. 

Mr. Bigelow, thank you very much. 

STATEMENT OF FRANK BIGELOW, SUPERVISOR, MADERA 

COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

Mr. BIGELOW. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Ms. Vice 

Chairman, thank you very much also, and all distinguished members. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to tell you how 

my community has been affected by the Department of Interior’s 

25

nine month delay in publishing a notice of availability of a draft 

environmental impact statement, better known as EIS, for tribal 

projects in my county. 

My name is Frank Bigelow, as the Chairman said, and I have 

served on the Board of Supervisors for the past nine years. I am 

pleased to be here today with Jacquie Davis-Van Huss, Tribal 

Chairperson of the North Fork Rancheria. On behalf of the county, 

I have worked closely with Ms. Jacquie and other tribal officials in 

connection with the tribe’s efforts to have land taken into trust for 

tribal economic development such as those Chairman Dorgan outlined earlier, as well as other opportunities, which does include a 

gaming facility just outside the City of Madera. 

The County of Madera, the city and the Chambers of Commerce 

all strongly support this project. As you know, the taking of lands 

into trust for tribal economic growth is a major Federal action 

under NEPA. As such, the Department of Interior must comply 

with NEPA. As an elected official, I believe that a key aspect of 

NEPA is that the lead agency here, the Department of Interior, solicits and receives meaningful public input and comments on the 

proposed project in order for it to adequately assess the project’s 

impacts on the environment. 

The NEPA process allows impacted communities such as mine an 

opportunity to formally comment on a proposed project. Since the 

beginning stages of this project, we have been an active participant 

in the project. In fact, the City of Madera and the Madera Irrigation District are cooperating agencies for the EIS under NEPA. 

We work closely with the tribe to ensure that all community concerns are addressed. The NEPA process facilitates the cooperation. 

We have benefitted from the process and we want it to continue. 

We have also invested time and resources in this process. However, 

the process has stopped and we do not know why. 

Please, let me summarize the work that has gone into the preparation of the draft EIS for this project. Three years ago, the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs began preparing the draft EIS to examine the environmental impacts of the proposed project and various alternatives. The proposed project is located on a parcel which the tribe 

had earlier identified in cooperation with the county and community representatives. The county considers the location ideal from 

an environmental and economic and land use perspective, and thus 

in August, 2004 entered into a comprehensive MOU with the tribe 

to mitigate any possible impacts the project may have on the county. 

Two months later, in October 2004, the BIA published a notice 

of intent to prepare an EIS for the project. The BIA then conducted 

a public hearing on the scoping process several weeks later, and 

eventually published the scoping report in July, 2005. We participated in those hearings and were satisfied with the scoping report. 

The BIA then worked diligently to prepare and distribute numerous administrative drafts of the EIS. In March, 2006, the BIA sent 

an administrative draft EIS for review and comment to each of the 

five cooperating agencies, including the City of Madera, Madera Irrigation, two local jurisdictions, to determine that the administrative draft provided more than enough information to use as a basis 

for negotiating their own separate mitigation agreements with the 

26

tribe. In October, 2006, the city entered into an MOU with the 

tribe, followed by the Madera Irrigation District two months later. 

This shows the ability of our community to recognize the need for 

this facility. 

I understand that the draft EIS was completed on February 2, 

and that it was ready for distribution to the public. It is also my 

understanding that the draft EIS cannot be made public until there 

is a formal notice of availability of the draft EIS published in the 

Federal Register. 

Unfortunately, the notice of availability has not yet been published, even though the draft was completed over nine months ago. 

Let me stress that publication of the notice of availability in the 

Federal Register is not a decision on the merits of the tribe’s 

project. It is simply a public notice of the draft EIS’s availability 

for review and comment. 

All levels of government have expended taxpayer money, Mr. 

Chairman, in this process for review, to allow the public to have 

an opportunity to review this project and comment on it. We are 

not getting that luxury afforded to us. We need that. We are asking. We are a community that is willing to embrace this opportunity. Please, as a Committee, review this process and give us 

some relief from the inaction from the BIA. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bigelow follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRANK BIGELOW, SUPERVISOR, MADERA COUNTY BOARD OF

SUPERVISORS

Chairman Dorgan, distinguished members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and to tell you how my community has been affected by 

the Department of the Interior’s 9-month delay in publishing a notice of availability 

of a draft environmental impact statement (‘‘EIS’’) for a tribal project in my county. 

My name is Frank Bigelow and I have served on the Madera County Board of 

Supervisors for the past 9 years. I am pleased to be here with Jacquie Davis-Van 

Huss, Tribal Chairperson of the North Fork Rancheria. On behalf of the County, I 

have worked closely with Jacquie and other tribal officials in connection with the 

Tribe’s efforts to have land taken into trust for a tribal gaming facility just outside 

of the city of Madera. The County of Madera, the City, and the Chambers of Commerce all strongly support this project. 

As you know, the taking of lands into trust for a tribal gaming facility, is a major 

Federal action under NEPA—the National Environmental Policy Act. As such, the 

Department of the Interior must comply with NEPA. As an elected County official, 

I believe that a key aspect of NEPA is that the lead agency—here the Department 

of the Interior—solicits and receives meaningful public input and comment on a proposed project in order for it to adequately assess the project’s impact on the environment. 

The NEPA process allows impacted communities, such as mine, an opportunity 

to formally comment on a proposed project. Since the beginning stages of this 

project, we have been an active participant in this project—in fact, the city of 

Madera and the Madera Irrigation District are cooperating agencies for the EIS 

under NEPA. We have worked closely with the Tribe to ensure that all community 

concerns are addressed. The NEPA process facilitates this cooperation. We have 

benefited from this process and we want it to continue. We have also invested time 

and resources in this process. However, the process has stopped and we do not know 

why. 

Please let me summarize the work that has gone into the preparation of the draft 

EIS for this project. 

Three years ago the Bureau of Indian Affairs began preparing the draft EIS to 

examine the environmental impacts of the proposed project and various alternatives. 

The proposed project is located on a parcel which the Tribe had earlier identified 

in cooperation with the County and community representatives. The County considers the location ideal from an environmental, economic, and land use perspective, 

27

and thus, in August 2004, entered into a comprehensive Memorandum of Understanding with the Tribe to mitigate any possible impacts the project may have on 

the County. 

Two months later, in October 2004, the BIA published a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS for the project. The BIA then conducted a public hearing on the scoping 

process several weeks later, and eventually published the scoping report in July 

2005. We participated in that hearing and were satisfied with the scoping report. 

The BIA then worked diligently to prepare and distribute numerous administrative drafts of the EIS. In March 2006, the BIA sent an administrative draft EIS for 

review and comment to each of the five cooperating agencies, including the city of 

Madera and the Madera Irrigation District. These two local jurisdictions determined 

that the administrative draft provided more than enough information to use as a 

basis for negotiating their own separate mitigation agreements with the Tribe. In 

October 2006, the City entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the 

Tribe, followed by the Madera Irrigation District 2 months later. Together with the 

County MOU, these agreements indicate the community’s strong support for the 

project. At this point, every Chamber of Commerce, the city of Chowchilla, and nearly every community organization in the County has endorsed the project. 

I understand that the draft EIS was completed on February 2nd and that it was 

ready for distribution to the public. It is also my understanding that the draft EIS 

cannot be made public until there is a formal ‘‘Notice of Availability of the Draft 

EIS’’ published in the Federal Register. 

Unfortunately, the Notice of Availability has not yet been published, even though 

the draft was completed over 9 months ago. BIA officials have told the Tribe that 

the draft EIS is in order and nothing further is required from the Tribe for its publication. However, and despite the fact that the Tribe has repeatedly met with BIA 

representatives, and local government and community leaders have gone so far as 

to enlist the support of our local Congressional representative, the delay continues 

without explanation. 

Let me stress that publication of the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register 

is not a decision on the merits of the Tribe’s project; it is simply a public notice of 

the draft EIS’s availability for review and comment. It is two pages in length and, 

as required by the BIA NEPA Handbook, contains a brief description of the proposed action and alternatives, instructions to the public for submitting comments 

and attending a public hearing, and a closing date for the receipt of comments. In 

short, it is a small but critical step to allow continued input from the public—including my constituents. 

All levels of government have expended taxpayer dollars in the preparation and 

review of the draft EIS. Further delay in publishing the draft EIS would be unfair 

to taxpayers, since the environmental studies in the draft EIS may eventually need 

to be updated, triggering additional review. It is also unfair to the Tribe and its 

more than 1,800 tribal citizens who continue to incur significant interest expenses 

with each passing month. 

In closing, the County and city of Madera are excited about the Tribe’s project 

and the development that it has already brought to our community. We are hopeful 

that the Committee’s oversight will help end the current backlog so that the NEPA 

process can continue without further delay.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bigelow, thank you very much. We appreciate your coming to our Committee today. 

Next, we will hear from Mr. Doug Nash, the Director of Indian 

Estate Planning and Probating, Institute of Indian Estate Planning 

and Probate at Seattle University School of Law in Seattle, Washington. 

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS NASH, DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR 

INDIAN ESTATE PLANNING AND PROBATE 

Mr. NASH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to be here, Madam Chairman. 

The Institute for Indian Estate Planning and Probate was established in August of 2005. We are a project of the Indian Land Tenure Foundation, a non-profit corporation headquartered in Little 

Canada, Minnesota. The institute develops and oversees estate 

planning projects, projects that provide estate planning services to 

28

tribal members. We have projects in operation in seven States at 

this time. We utilize a variety of different models. Those include 

providing staff positions, attorneys, paralegals, specially trained 

law students working as externs and interns, and a clinical program there at Seattle University as well. 

These services are provided to tribal members at no cost, and 

projects to date have provided approximately 2,400 estate planning 

documents, including wills, to tribal clients throughout the areas 

our project serves. Except for a pilot project funded by the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs, all of our projects are funded through private 

sources, foundations and non-profits. Consequently, the number of 

projects that we operate and the number of clients that can be 

served are limited. It is our hope that the authorization for appropriations as provided in the Probate Reform Act at some point will 

be activated and utilized for this purpose. 

I wanted to touch briefly upon the benefits of estate planning 

services as a remedy or having an impact upon the backlog of probates and the issue of fractionation. Estate planning, effective and 

professional estate planning, does a number of things. First of all, 

it provides an opportunity to catch errors in land title records as 

wills and estate plans are being done for tribal member clients, and 

consequently it provides an opportunity to correct those mistakes. 

In many instances, estate planning avoids probate entirely. 

Many times, clients wish to provide gift deeds or effect sales of 

their interests in trust property to tribes or other tribal members, 

or pursue consolidation applications, and in taking those approaches remove their estate from the probate process. 

Wills also provide an opportunity to avoid fractionation, or further fractionation of interests in trust land. Since we have been 

tracking the statistics, we find that approximately 90 percent of the 

wills done have that effect. There are a number of devices by which 

that can be achieved, allowing a tribal member client to leave property to heirs as joint tenants with a right of survivorship, leaving 

entire parcels to individuals heirs, and so on. 

Professionally done wills facilitate the probate process when wills 

are correctly and properly done. Wills can also avoid the fractionation that is actually caused by the Probate Reform Act, which 

happens when interests that are greater than five percent are less 

to pass intestate. It is our belief that the goals and purposes of the 

Probate Reform Act cannot be achieved unless there is professional 

estate planning services provided to tribal member clients throughout Indian Country. 

We have an interesting opportunity in the State of Alaska, 

Madam Vice Chair, where there are first generation allotments, 

compared to allotments in the lower 48, many of which date back, 

as you know, for 100 plus years, and where fractionation is a very 

serious problem. That problem doesn’t exist yet where those first 

generation allotments exist. We believe that would be a very 

unique opportunity to provide estate planning services in those situations and avoid there, I believe, the problem of fractionation that 

we see so rampant across reservations here in the lower 48. 

I thank the Committee again for the opportunity to be here. We 

would be happy to provide any further information that we can on 

this issue. 

29

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nash follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS NASH, DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR INDIAN ESTATE

PLANNING AND PROBATE

My name is Douglas Nash. I am the Director of the Institute for Indian Estate 

Planning and Probate which is a project of the Indian Land Tenure Foundation 

(ILTF), a non-profit foundation headquartered in Little Canada, Minnesota. The Institute is housed at Seattle University School of Law in Seattle, Washington. The 

Institute was created by the (ILTF) in 2005 in anticipation of the American Indian 

Probate Reform Act (AIPRA) taking effect in June, 2006. 

I would like to address briefly three areas. First the work of the Institute; second, 

the impact of fractionation and probate backlogs as discovered through our work; 

third, suggestions for addressing the issues of fractionation and backlog. 

I. The Institute: 

The mission of the Institute is to assist Indian people in making informed decisions about their property by:

1. Establishing legal service projects that provide free and reduced cost estate 

planning and consolidation services to individual tribal members;

2. Providing training to tribal members, governmental officials and the legal 

community, and;

3. Serving as a clearinghouse for the latest information on the American Indian 

Probate Reform Act.

In addition, we have begun offering review of draft tribal probate codes that will 

be submitted for approval pursuant to the provisions of AIPRA. 

1. Projects 

Our projects are funded by the ILTF and other foundations and provide no cost 

estate planning services to tribal communities. Over the past 4 years, we have utilized a number of different and successful models designed to provide estate planning service and information on land consolidation, including will drafting, gift 

deeds, sales and durable powers of attorney. These models utilize different combinations of attorney, para-legal, and law student interns providing services to selected 

tribes in South Dakota, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Minnesota, and Arizona. In FY 2006, we also managed a 1-year, one half million dollar pilot project 

funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Among the stated purposes of that BIA 

project was to determine if estate planning services were needed in Indian Country 

and, if so, whether fractionation could be effectively addressed by estate planning. 

The results indicate an unequivocal yes to both questions. Under that project, estate 

planning services were provided on six reservations in Washington and Oregon as 

well as reservations in South Dakota. Copies of that final report will be provided 

to you. 

Overall, the projects that we have developed and overseen have resulted in a total 

of 1,326 wills and 1,142 other estate planning documents being completed at no cost 

to Indian people. Insofar as I am aware, ours is the only program in the country 

that is seeking to provide estate planning services on a large scale in Indian Country. We develop programs as funds become available. However, our current projects 

do not even come close to meeting the need nation-wide and private funding for 

these services is very difficult to come by as it is viewed by private foundations as 

a government problem. 

2. Training 

We have held 2-day, national symposia in Seattle, WA, Rapid City, SD and 

Tempe, AZ in addition to responding to requests from tribes, organizations and state 

bar sections in Montana, Idaho, Nevada, South Dakota, Minnesota, Washington and 

California. We are currently planning national programs to be held in Minnesota, 

New Mexico and again in Seattle. For our symposia, we bring in a wide range of 

experts as presenters including Judges from the Office of Hearings and Appeals, Attorney Decision Makers, Bureau of Indian Affairs officials, personnel from the Office 

of the Special Trustee, Indian Land Consolidation Program, law school faculty, Tribal and private attorneys. We have heard the questions posed by hundreds of Indian 

land owners who have attended these sessions. We have the benefit of interacting 

with all of these individuals whose knowledge and information contributes to our 

knowledge of the probate process. 

More Information on the Institute is available at www.indianwills.org. 

30

1Lewis Meriam et al., The Problem of Indian Administration: Report of a Survey Made at the 

Request of Hon. Hubert Work, Sec. of the Int. (Feb. 21, 1928) (John Hopkins Press, 1928) availble 

at http://www.alaskool.org/nativeled/researchlreports/IndianAdmin/IndianlAdminlProblms.html.

II. Fractionation of Land and Probate Backlog 

With that background, I’d like to offer some observations and thoughts about the 

backlog in Indian probate cases. 

Fractionation of trust allotments is a fact and one that has been recognized as 

an exponential problem in many governmental studies including the 1928 Meriam 

Report. 1 Examples and figures abound. With the focus on fractionation, it should 

also be noted, however, that not every parcel of trust land is highly fractionated and 

if highly fractionated, can still have substantial economic value. 

In many locations where the allotment process was late in being applied to reservations, or individual owners were tenacious in land protection, large interests including 100 percent ownerships, are found. In many instances, an interest less than 

5 percent of the total parcel will have minimal economic value. However, 5 percent 

of a 160 acre parcel of land is 8 acres which could well be suitable for many uses. 

Likewise, an interest that is less than 5 percent of a parcel situated in a municipal 

setting in southern California or which overlays valuable oil or mineral deposits, 

has substantial economic value. Additionally, even small interests in an original allotment can have historic, cultural, familial and personal values to an individual 

owner that are far more important than any economic consideration. 

Fractionation is a significant factor in the probate backlog, as each interest, however minute, requires accurate title records from the inception of decedent’s probate 

package, distribution at probate and entry of new title transfers to heirs. 

The probate process requires the involvement of three different entities-the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Office of Special Trustee and the Office of Hearings and 

Appeals. There are delays that apparently stem from each agency and the need for 

additional personnel and resources is often raised as a potential to the backlog problem. It appears that all agencies are making significant progress on the existing 

backlog. OHA is doing so with a small number of judges especially compared to the 

number of probate, realty, and contract personnel involved at the BIA and tribal 

end of the process. In light of the existing caseload and the future impacts of AIPRA 

allowing for purchase options and consolidations during probate which will further 

slow the process, increases in the number of judges should be considered. 

There are other complicating factors that need to be addressed as well. 

1. Trust Land Ownership Records 

The BIA has the responsibility of preparing a probate file as the first step in the 

probate process. This involves the gathering of all relevant information about the 

decedent including records of trust land ownership. Those records are currently 

maintained at different agencies and in several Land Title Record Offices around 

the country that maintain records for different regions. The number of fractionated 

interests complicates the ownership record keeping process by sheer numbers and 

the fact that one individual may well own interests that are recorded in more than 

one LTRO. Changes in ownership are not necessarily recorded at a uniform pace 

and a probate file may be sent forward that does not include all of the interests 

owned by a decedent at the time of death, making the probate inaccurate and necessitating additional probate proceedings and a modification of a final probate order. 

When a final probate order is issued, that order is sent to back to the BIA where 

changes in title ownership—from the decedent to heirs—is to be recorded. Because 

those orders may have to be interpreted and recorded by several different LTROs, 

there may be differences in the interpretation process. 

There are errors in the land title records. I know from personal experience that 

there are inconsistencies between records in the TAAMS and TFAS systems. To 

achieve consistency in policy and interpretation, increased accuracy and timely recordation of changes in ownership, having central land ownership records accessible 

nationally with well defined procedures would be a positive step. 

Outdated ownership records and data bases create a new probate backlog as they 

are corrected, increasing the work for the BIA and OHA. As title records are corrected, new heirs are found requiring case openings, often with one or more heirs 

deceased resulting in reopening and modifications to closed probate cases. Many of 

these old cases predate the Protrac system, which means the data must be entered 

by BIA before OHA can begin probates. 

Finally, under AIPRA, measurements of fractionated interests will be used determine consent requirements for sales at probate, partitions and also the application 

the intestate ‘‘single heir’’ rule. This is significant. Accurate and up-to-date title 

31

records are essential to avoid the misapplication and taking of interests without consent. As historically evidenced by Youpee, the return of fractionated lands to rightful heirs is an costly and onerous process that is difficult to achieve. 

2. Probate Files 

Probate begins only when a death is reported to the BIA and that reporting is 

dependent upon members of the family or community. That may not happen for a 

long time after the death actually occurs. For example, the death of a person who 

is not married and who has no descendents may not be reported as promptly as that 

of an individual who has a large family. Presumption of death cases require additional work and a higher level of expertise that the typical probate cases as OHA 

must make determinations that an individual is presumed to be deceased. One recommendation is to allow BIA and OHA to use OST investigators in developing and 

adjudicating these cases. The failure to have a death reported or death presumption 

cases may well result in further errors in the probate of related estates resulting 

in additional case reopening and modifications. 

It is our understanding that the BIA has initiated a quota system for the preparation of probate files in an attempt to increase the number of files sent forward to 

OHA for probate. This has resulted in a significant reduction in the backlog reported. However, in many instances, this has increased the number of files sent forward incomplete requiring the files to be sent back to the BIA or the OHA must 

attempt to finish compiling the necessary information. It is not known how returned 

files are reported in the backlog process. 

In these kind of situations, OHA judges are often placed in the position of having 

to do work on probate files to make them complete. They do not have investigators 

or staff to perform that function. The ILTF and the Institute have discussed the 

prospect of developing a model intern/extern program to work with OHA judges and 

which could address that need. While such a program could be developed and, we 

believe, initial private funding could be obtained, it ultimately would require Federal funding to support and continue it. 

3. Planning and Coordination 

Because the Indian probate system depends upon separate agencies and several 

different offices within those agencies, there is clearly a need for integrated data 

sharing and coordination between all involved. 

4. Impact of AIPRA on the Probate Process 

The full impact of AIPRA on the probate process is yet to be seen. That impact 

will not be fully seen until most or all of the cases before OHA are those where the 

decedent passed away after June 20, 2006, and thus are subject to the provisions 

of AIPRA. However, it is expected that the need to address consolidation agreements 

and purchase options as part of the probate process will result in some cases taking 

more time to close. 

III. Solutions 

Tools to reduce, and ultimately eliminate fractionation, already exist. Those tools 

include: (1) The American Indian Probate Reform Act, (2) Estate Planning services 

for Indian Country and, (3) The Indian Land Consolidation Program. Recommendations for improvements are mentioned throughout this testimony. 

1. The American Indian Probate Reform Act 

AIPRA contains a multitude of mechanisms that can be used by the Secretary, 

tribes and individuals to consolidate interests in trust allotments. Examples include 

tribal land consolidation plans, consolidation agreements, fractional interest acquisition program, purchase options at probate, renunciation and partitioning that reconsolidates all interest in one owner. Other mechanisms such as the single heir 

rule and testamentary presumption of joint tenant with right of survivor will serve 

to avoid further fractionation of small interests in trust lands. Given sufficient time, 

the Act will have the intended result of reducing fractionation through consolidation 

of interests. 

2. Estate Planning 

Estate planning is an important and unrecognized tool for reducing fractionation 

and probate cases, reconsolidating land interests, and furthering an individual’s 

ability to voluntarily manage their own lands. Additionally, estate planning diminishes the number of land interests entering the probate stream through inter-vivos 

32

2 Under AIPRA, a person may devise in a will a trust interest to anyone defined as an ‘‘eligible 

heir.’’ However, a person cannot make an inter-vivos conveyance in trust to some of those same 

individuals. The result is that some individuals are forced to wait until death and probate to 

achieve what they might otherwise wish to do while alive. The purpose and intent of AIPRA 

would be furthered by simple legislation authorizing the inter-vivos conveyance of interests in 

trust land, in trust, to all persons defined as ‘‘eligible heirs’’ under AIPRA. 

transfers including sales, consolidation applications and gift deeds. 2 Another important benefit, estate planning allows title records to be corrected or updated when 

discrepancies are found while the owner is alive as each client has an updated title 

report reviewed in the estate planning process. 

The Institute’s projects provide community education to landowners and client 

counseling, successfully highlighting consolidation options with a will and lifetime 

transfers. The result—only 8 percent of wills drafted further fractionate lands; and 

gift deeds, sales and consolidation agreements transfer the lands during life avoiding the probate process entirely. Because AIPRA’s intestacy rules distribute interests 5 percent or greater to all eligible heirs as tenants in common, further 

fractionating ownership interests, estate planning provides greater tools for protection against fractionation than AIPRA itself. 

AIPRA is highly complex with provisions coordinated with other Federal acts and 

codes. The Act, combined with the withdrawal of BIA will drafting services, has created a huge void of specially trained professionals to provide estate planning for Indian people. The need for trained professionals has been voiced to us from every 

quarter. It is our estimation that there are currently less than 100 legal professionals currently trained nationally. We have already seen the results of will drafting being done by attorneys who are unaware of AIPRA and its ramifications for 

their clients. This poses a potentially disastrous result for the Indian client in terms 

of their estate plans and desires. It also poses a potentially disastrous professional 

liability for the attorney who performed the work. 

While our projects have had a beneficial effect, the tribal communities served are 

very limited. The pursuit of private funds to support this work has been met with 

very limited success, as the work is often viewed as a governmental responsibility. 

AIPRA contains an authorization for appropriations for estate planning work in Indian Country. An appropriation of funds sufficient to deliver these services throughout Indian Country would significantly advance the effort to reduce, and eventually 

eliminate fractionation. AIPRA’s goals will fail unless funding for professional estate 

planning services is provided. 

3. Indian Land Consolidation Program 

The ILCO program, established in April 2003 as a pilot program on a limited 

number of reservations, has a demonstrated remarkable record of success in eliminating fractional interests, purchasing 359,723 interests for tribes and precluding 

them from ever reaching probate. The mechanics of the program need not be reviewed here. The program has broad support for three primary reasons—first, trust 

interests are purchased on a willing seller basis; second, purchase are made at fair 

market value and; third, the interests purchased are consolidated into tribal ownership. Given the very significant results achieved by this program it is amazing that 

funding for it has been significantly reduced for FY 2008, to a level that will not 

allow it to reduce the number of fractionated interests but only maintain the status 

quo against the ever increasing numbers of fractionated interests coming into existence. This is especially amazing since the purchase price is ultimately repaid by revenue generated from the acquired interest. The program currently operates on only 

eight reservations, all located in the Midwest. The Indian Land Consolidation Program has proven itself to be a highly effective tool in the elimination of fractionated 

interests with the benefit of affecting consolidation of those interests in tribal ownership. The program should be expanded to other reservations and should be funded 

at a substantially increased rate. 

A news article some time ago noted that there was no quick fix for Indian probate 

problems and that remains true with regard to the backlog of cases. Fractionation 

and the attendant problems that flow from it began with the allotment process 130 

years ago. AIPRA, estate planning services and the Indian Land Consolidation Program will ultimately resolve the fractionation problem or reduce it to an insignificant level. The elimination of fractionation will go far in reducing the complications 

in the probate process that feeds the backlog seen now. 

4. Revised Process Recommendation 

Arvel Hale, former Chief Appraiser for the BIA who now works as a consultant 

on appraisal and systems issues, has a suggestion for reducing the time required 

to prepare probate documents. He proposes developing a system that will:

33

(1) Retrieve the ownership data from the Land Records System (TAAMS).

(2) Retrieve money amounts from the IIM accounts.

(3) Retrieve names and addresses of the heirs from the enrollment system.

(4) Prepare property value estimates using a Mass Appraisal Model that utilized inventory data from the trust land management system.

(5) Calculate the entitlements from the probate to be conveyed to the heirs.

(6) Electronically compile and print data in report formats that would be helpful 

to the Probate Judges.

(7) As Probate Judges rule on the cases the land records could be automatically 

updated from the information in the probate system.

He has advised that this system would require links to existing BIA and OST 

data bases so that data can be efficiently passed between them and the probate system. The technicalities involved in developing this kind of system are far beyond 

my understanding, but I would be happy to assist in exploring the prospect further 

with Mr. Hale should that be of interest to the Committee. 

5. Alaska—A Unique Opportunity 

Alaska presents a unique opportunity in terms of Indian estate planning. Whether 

one agrees with the allotment process, there are first generations allotments in 

Alaska. This presents an opportunity to avoid the fractionation crisis and to demonstrate that fractionation can be avoided by estate planning. 

IV. Conclusion 

I would like to thank this Committee for allowing me the opportunity to appear 

and offer testimony on this important issue. I would like to especially thank this 

Committee for its interest in the Indian Probate Process and in making it work for 

the benefit of Indian people, tribes and communities. 

If we can provide any further information or respond to any questions, we would 

be happy to do so.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Nash, thank you very much for your testimony today. 

Next, we will hear from Mr. Robert Chicks, Vice President, National Congress of American Indians, Midwest Region; President of 

the Stockbridge Munsee Band of Mohican Indians; Co-Chair of the 

NCAI Land Recovery Task Force; President of the Midwest Alliance of Sovereign Tribes; President of the Great Lakes Intertribal 

Council. 

Mr. Chicks, do you have any other titles that I might have 

missed here? 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. You are a very busy man, and we thank you very 

much for bringing your testimony to the Committee today. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT CHICKS, VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 

CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS (NCAI), MIDWEST

REGION; PRESIDENT, STOCKBRIDGE MUNSEE BAND OF

MOHICAN INDIANS; ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN DOSSETT,

GENERAL COUNSEL, NCAI 

Mr. CHICKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the invitation. 

I testify to you on behalf of the National Congress of American 

Indians and our member tribes. We have grown increasingly concerned about the backlog of realty functions at the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the negative impacts on our efforts to develop economic activity on our reservations, as well as the impact on housing, our culture and our services, and land consolidation. We hope 

to offer some suggestions on how Congress and the Department of 

Interior can address these growing problems. 

34

First, I believe it is important for Congress to recognize that land 

management should be the BIA’s core mission and priority, to protect and restore the permanent homelands where tribal communities live and govern our own affairs. 

Second, the various backlogs are not independent problems, but 

are related parts of the same Bureau of Land Management system. 

I have included in my testimony a simple diagram of the Bureau 

trust business cycle. This chart shows how most economic transactions work in Indian Country, starting with land and ownership, 

moving to land leasing and sales of natural resources, and then accounting and distribution of the trust funds back to the landowners. Backlogs in one area create a bottleneck that causes multiple delays across the entire system. 

Third, over the last 10 years, a great deal of attention has been 

paid to trust accounting because of the litigation over Indian trust 

funds. However, the basic Bureau land functions of title, leasing, 

acquisitions and probate are even more critical to Indian communities because these functions drive economic development. Business transactions from routine home mortgages to timber sales to 

large commercial deals require predictability and timeliness that is 

lacking from the Bureau system. 

The causes of these backlogs are complex and rooted in the history where the Bureau has mismanaged tribal lands due to inadequate resources and a lack of oversight and accountability. These 

historic problems have been compounded in recent years by several 

factors, including the Fiscal Year 1996 budget cuts for Bureau programs were implemented primarily by laying off realty workers in 

the field offices. The realty budget has never recovered from these 

cuts. 

The level of fractionation has increased dramatically, causing 

backlogs in probate and title that create delays in other parts of 

the land management system. In response to the trust fund litigation, available resources have been shifted to the Office of Special 

Trustee, which has grown to $150 million annual budget with resources largely taken from the Bureau realty offices. The litigation 

has also cut off e-mail and internet access, which eliminates the efficiency of current communication technologies. Indian tribes are 

increasing our economic activities, creating an increase in commercial leasing, land transactions and the need for appraisals. 

I want to mention several solutions for these backlogs that have 

garnered wide support from tribal leaders. Number one, all of these 

factors have combined to create backlogs in Bureau realty that will 

not change until Congress puts more financial resources into these 

functions. In addition, Bureau realty needs process and system improvements, recruitment and training programs for employees, and 

leadership to develop and implement a plan for business operations 

and trust management. 

Second, Congress should also revisit Title III of last year’s S. 

1439 bill which would increase tribal control over reservation land 

management. Indian reservations vary widely in their needs for 

land management services. Tribes would be able to create reservation-specific land management plans and allocate the available 

funding according to the needs of that particular reservation. They 

would have the option to take over specific functions. Under these 

35

plans, tribes would also be authorized under certain types of leases, 

without the involvement of the department. 

Three, Congress should also revisit Title IV of last year’s S. 1439 

bill which would amend the Indian Land Consolidation Act to 

streamline land acquisition procedures and create incentives for 

sales of fractionated interests. 

And four, Congress should work with tribes in the development 

of other innovative solutions. Lending in Indian Country is often a 

problem, and some tribes are developing ideas about lending intermediaries who can become familiar with securing loans into the 

Bureau trust system. 

Finally, I want to particularly mention one of the backlogs that 

has is of great importance to tribes. As this Committee knows, between the years 1887 and 1934, the U.S. Government took more 

than 90 million acres from the tribes, nearly two thirds of all our 

reservation lands, and sold it to settlers and corporations. 

The Secretary of Interior was given the responsibility under the 

Indian Reorganization Act to reacquire land for Indian tribes and 

restore the damage caused by earlier congressional policies. As 

noted by one of the IRA’s principal authors, Congressman Howard 

of Nebraska, he said, ‘‘The land was theirs under titles guaranteed 

by treaties and law, and when the government of the United States 

set up a land policy which, in effect, became a form of legalized 

misappropriation of the Indian estate, the government became morally responsible for the damage that has resulted to the Indians 

from its faithless guardianship.’’

The vast majority of trust land acquisitions take place in rural 

areas within the boundaries of existing reservations, and are not 

controversial in any way. Trust land acquisition is necessary for 

the consolidation of fractionated and allotted Indian lands, and 

often is needed for essential purposes such as Indian housing, 

health care clinics, and land for Indian schools. 

Our perception has been that land-to-trust applications are delayed because they are discretionary functions in officers that are 

understaffed and overloaded with mandatory trust functions. Even 

though land-to-trust applications are a very high priority for the 

tribes and for the fundamental mission of the Bureau, they are 

given a lower priority because they do not come with deadlines attached to them. 

The backlog of decision making in Bureau realty has been a leading concern of tribal leaders throughout the Country for many 

years, and the National Congress of American Indians strongly encourages Congress and the Administration to take action on these 

issues in close consultation with the tribal leadership. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Chicks follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT CHICKS, VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL CONGRESS OF

AMERICAN INDIANS (NCAI), MIDWEST REGION; PRESIDENT, STOCKBRIDGE MUNSEE

BAND OF MOHICAN INDIANS

Honorable Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. This is a very timely and important topic. The National Congress of American Indians and its member tribes have grown increasingly concerned 

about the backlog of realty functions at the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the negative impacts on our efforts to develop economic activity on the reservations. In our 

36

testimony, we hope to shed light on the context of these various backlogs, and offer 

constructive suggestions on how Congress and the Department of Interior can make 

improvements. 

First, I believe it is important for Congress to recognize that the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs is primarily a land management agency. It is a specialized type of land management, with the responsibility of holding 56 million acres of Indian lands in trust 

and managing them as a permanent homeland where Indian tribal communities live 

and govern their own affairs. Of course the BIA has other functions such as law 

enforcement and education, but these activities are a part of the primary responsibility of protecting and managing tribal homelands. Land management should be 

the BIA’s core mission and priority. 

Second, the various backlogs that the Committee has identified are not independent problems, but are interrelated parts of the same BIA land management system. I have attached to my testimony a simplified diagram of the BIA trust business 

cycle. This chart shows how most economic transactions work in Indian country—

starting with land and ownership, moving to land leasing and sales of natural resources, and then accounting and distribution of trust funds back to the land owners. Backlogs in one area affect the entire system. For example, in order to execute 

a lease, the BIA must have an accurate title status report and a current appraisal 

and may need a survey and an environmental review. In order to get a title status 

report, the BIA may have to update the title with the results of probate decisions. 

A bottleneck at one step in the process causes multiple delays across the entire system. 

Third, over the last 10 years, a great deal of attention has been paid to the accounting part of the trust business cycle because of the litigation over Indian trust 

funds. However, in the big picture the basic BIA land functions of title, leasing, acquisitions and probate are even more critical to Indian communities because these 

functions drive economic development. Business transactions—from routine home 

mortgages to timber sales to large commercial deals—require a degree of predictability and timeliness that is lacking from the BIA system. Tribal leaders want to 

fix the BIA land system and we hope to work closely with the Committee and the 

Department in developing solutions.

37

1See Misplaced Trust: The Bureau of Indian Affairs’ Mismanagement of the Indian Trust 

Fund, H.R. Rep. No. 499, 102d Cong., 2ND Sess. 1992, 1992 WL 83494 (Leg.Hist.), and, Financial Management: BIA’s Tribal Trust Fund Account Reconciliation Results (Letter Report, 05/

03/96, GAO/AIMD–96–63).

Causes and Solutions of BIA Realty Backlogs 

Trust problems at the BIA are rooted in our country’s history. In a push to acquire tribal land, the Federal Government imposed reservation allotment programs 

pursuant to the General Allotment Act of 1887. Under these policies, tribes lost 90 

million acres and much of the remaining 56 million acres was opened to non-Indian 

use through leasing and sales. It is widely documented that the BIA has historically 

mismanaged tribal lands due to inadequate resources and a lack of oversight and 

accountability. 1 The historic problems have been compounded in recent years by 

several factors: 

• The FY 1996 budget cuts for BIA programs were implemented primarily by laying off realty workers in the field offices. The realty budget has never recovered 

from these cuts.

• The level of fractionation has increased dramatically, causing backlogs in probate and title that create delays in other parts of the land management system. 

Fractionation is also creating mounting costs in both management and losses 

in land productivity.


1004chi.eps
38

• In response to the Cobell litigation for a trust funds accounting, available resources have been shifted to the Office of Special Trustee, which has grown to 

a $150 million annual budget with resources largely taken from BIA realty. The 

litigation has also cut off e-mail and internet access, which eliminates the efficiency of current communication technologies.

• Indian tribes have increased their economic activities, creating an increase in 

commercial leasing, land transactions and the need for appraisals.

Potential solutions include:

1) All of these factors have combined to create backlogs in BIA realty that will 

not change until Congress puts more financial resources into those offices at the 

local level. In addition, BIA realty needs process and system improvements; recruitment and training programs for employees; and leadership to develop and 

implement a plan for business operations in trust management.

2) Congress should also revisit Title III of last year’s S. 1439, which would increase tribal control over reservation land management. Indian reservations 

vary widely in their needs for land management services. Indian tribes would 

be able to create reservation-specific land management plans to establish objectives and priorities, and allocate the available funding according to the needs 

of that particular reservation. Both direct service and self-governance tribes are 

eligible to use the plans. Under these plans, tribes would be authorized to enter 

certain types of leases for up to 25 year terms without the involvement of the 

Department.

3) Congress should also revisit Title IV of last year’s S. 1439, which would 

amend the Indian Land Consolidation Act to streamline land acquisition procedures and create incentives for sales of fractionated interests.

Land to Trust Acquisitions 

As mentioned above, between the years of 1887 and 1934, the U.S. Government 

took more than 90 million acres from the tribes, nearly two-thirds of all reservation 

lands, and sold it to settlers and corporations. The principal goal of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 was to halt and reverse the abrupt decline in the economic, 

cultural, governmental and social well-being of Indian tribes caused by the disastrous Federal policy of allotment and sale of reservation lands. The IRA is comprehensive legislation for the benefit of tribes that stops the allotment of tribal 

lands, continues the Federal trust ownership of tribal lands in perpetuity, encourages economic development, and provides a framework for the reestablishment of 

tribal government institutions on their own lands. 

Section 5 of the IRA, 25 U.S.C. 465, provides for the recovery of the tribal land 

base and authorizes the Secretary of Interior to acquire land in trust status for the 

benefit of Indian tribes to assist in meeting the broad goals of the Act. As noted 

by one of the IRA’s principal authors, Congressman Howard of Nebraska, ‘‘the land 

was theirs under titles guaranteed by treaties and law; and when the government 

of the United States set up a land policy which, in effect, became a forum of legalized misappropriation of the Indian estate, the government became morally responsible for the damage that has resulted to the Indians from its faithless guardianship,’’ and said the purpose of the IRA was ‘‘to buildup Indian land holdings until 

there is sufficient land for all Indians who will beneficially use it.’’ (78 Cong. Rec. 

11727–11728, 1934.) 

Of the 90 million acres of tribal land lost through the allotment process, only 

about 8 percent has been reacquired in trust status since the IRA—and most of that 

was the ‘‘ceded but unallotted lands’’ returned immediately after the IRA. Still 

today, a number of tribes have no land base and many tribes have insufficient lands 

to support housing and self-government. Most tribal lands will not readily support 

economic development. A fundamental purpose of the IRA in promoting land acquisition was to address the problem of scattered and fractionated parcels which often 

rendered the tribal land base essentially unusable from a practical standpoint. And 

the legacy of the allotment policy, which has deeply fractionated heirship of trust 

lands, means that for many tribes, far more Indian land passes out of trust than 

into trust each year. Section 5 clearly imposes a continuing active duty on the Secretary of Interior, as the trustee for Indian tribes, to take land into trust for the 

benefit of tribes until our needs for self-support and self-determination are met. 

Despite this important purpose, land to trust applications often languish at the 

Department of Interior. It is a chief concern of many tribes with the existing land 

to trust process. Too often tribes have spent precious time and scarce resources to 

prepare a trust application only to have it sit for years or even decades without a 

response. Such inordinate delay on trust applications often amounts to an unfair de 

facto denial of the request. In addition, during inordinate delays tribes risk losing 

39

funding and support for the projects that they have planned for the land, and environmental review documents grow stale. 

Our perception has been that most often land to trust applications languish because they are discretionary functions in offices that are understaffed and overloaded with mandatory trust functions. Even though land to trust applications are 

a very high priority for the tribes and for the fundamental mission of the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs, they are given a lower priority because they do not come with 

deadlines attached to them. 

Tribal leaders have encouraged the BIA to establish internal timelines and checklists so that tribes will have a clear idea of when a decision on their application will 

be rendered. Tribes should know if progress is being made at all, and, if not, why 

not. Although we understand that the BIA is understaffed and that certain requests 

pose problems that cannot be resolved quickly, allowing applications to remain unresolved for years is unacceptable. The issue evokes much frustration over pending applications and has been raised at nearly every NCAI meeting. 

Tribal leaders’ frustrations are heightened because the vast majority of trust land 

acquisitions take place in extremely rural areas and are not controversial in any 

way. Most acquisitions involve home sites of 30 acres or less within reservation 

boundaries. Trust land acquisition is also necessary for consolidation of fractionated 

and allotted Indian lands, which most often are grazing, forestry or agricultural 

lands. Other typical acquisitions include land for Indian housing, health care clinics 

that serve both Indian and non-Indian communities, and land for Indian schools. 

NCAI continues to urge the BIA to establish internal timelines for land to trust 

applications, which would include a provision for unusual and problematic cases. We 

believe these timeframes would balance the need for timely action from the BIA 

without burdening its staff or creating unrealistic expectations for the tribes. While 

decisionmakers must have adequate time, this must be balanced against the reality 

that all work expands to fill up the amount of time allotted to it. Establishing reasonable timelines is the only way to meet the tribes main goals—creating accountability in the process, and providing tribes with an estimated timeframe in which 

their applications will be processed. 

Environmental Review 

One of the more burdensome requirements for many land transactions such as 

leases and acquisitions is the requirement that the application undergo an environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Bureau 

of Indian Affairs does not have an adequate budget to perform environmental analysis, so these costs are most often pushed onto the Indian tribes who are seeking 

to develop a project on their own lands. Even when these are environmentally beneficial projects such as a sewage treatment plant, the BIA, and thus the tribes, must 

comply with NEPA. 

On this issue, we encourage the Congress to increase the resources to the BIA 

for compliance with NEPA, which can be a particularly difficult burden for tribes 

with fewer resources and larger land bases. In addition, we believe that it is appropriate for Congress to consider relieving tribes of some of the burdens of NEPA 

when tribes are developing publicly beneficial projects such as schools and clinics 

and other important community infrastructure. We do not believe that NEPA was 

ever intended to be a barrier to needed development of tribal lands by tribal governments where there is no real Federal action other than a pro forma land transaction 

approval. 

Finally, we recommend that the Department consider utilizing a categorical exclusion in its Departmental Manual for land transactions that do not involve a change 

in use. The BIA has a categorical exclusion for ‘‘Approvals or other grants of conveyances and other transfers of interests in land where no change in land use is 

planned.’’ 516 Departmental Manual 10.5.I. This categorical exclusion can and 

should be extended to conveyances where no change in land use is planned. Many 

tribes wish to take undeveloped land into trust for cultural or natural resource protection, and would manage such lands to fulfill those goals. In such cases, no change 

or environmental detriment to the land would occur. As a result, it makes good policy sense for transfers of such lands to benefit from the same categorical exclusion 

as other transfers of interests in lands which will have no adverse environmental 

impacts. 

As the Department has recognized, conservation and cultural resources protection 

are important goals for many tribes seeking to take land into trust. Providing tribes 

with a categorical exclusion from NEPA review in such cases will remove a burdensome and unnecessary transactional cost, and help many tribes achieve those important goals. Such a mechanism would be of particular assistance to those tribes with 

fewer resources and larger land bases in need of protection. 

40

Conclusion 

NCAI and all tribal leaders strongly support fixing the trust land management 

system and we want to work constructively with the Department and with Congress 

to ensure sound management of tribal assets. The backlog of decisionmaking in BIA 

realty has been a leading concern of tribal leaders throughout the country for many 

years. NCAI strongly encourages Congress and the Administration to take action on 

all of the fronts that we have identified above, in close consultation and cooperation 

with tribal leadership. This effort will bring great benefits to Indian communities 

and our neighbors in productivity, economic development, and the wellbeing of our 

people. We thank you in advance, and look forward to starting our joint efforts immediately.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Chicks, thank you very much. 

We have been joined by the Vice Chairman of the Committee, 

Senator Murkowski. 

Senator Murkowski, did you wish to say anything before you ask 

questions, or in terms of an opening statement? 

Senator MURKOWSKI. No, Mr. Chairman. I will include or incorporate in my questions any opening comments that I might have 

had. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. A few questions. For example, Mr. Bigelow, you 

describe what the county has gone through. You describe a delay 

in publishing the notice for the draft environmental impact statement. I can tell from your testimony how frustrating it is in terms 

of time. Tell me what you have done to reach out to try to figure 

out what is happening inside the system, inside the BIA. Have you 

contacted the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the Department of the 

Interior about status? What are you learning? 

Mr. BIGELOW. We have, Mr. Chairman. We have made numerous 

attempts to contact either directly through the BIA or through our 

congressional representation, asking questions as to how we can 

better assist the BIA in accomplishing moving this project forward. 

It is a simple project. It is relatively benign if you look at the process of just allowing a two page report. It explains how the public 

process would work to go forward. Yet something so simple isn’t occurring. We are perplexed or curious, maybe I should put. My own 

position there is why we are not seeing the due process occur. 

The CHAIRMAN. What are you learning? When you call and ask, 

you are talking to different levels. What are you told? 

Mr. BIGELOW. We are told that the BIA is in charge of this and 

they will get back to us, and they will address this. We are basically stonewalled, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. So does anybody get back to you? 

Mr. BIGELOW. No, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. 

Mr. Rhodes, you have this building. If we could have somebody 

put the picture of the building back up. I am trying to understand 

the circumstances. I guess it is pointed a different way at this 

point. 

When I did a listening session on the Gila Indian Reservation, 

I think it was in February of this year, I saw that building. That 

building has been completed for how long, Governor? 

Mr. RHODES. Just a little over a year, at a cost of about $7 million. 

The CHAIRMAN. And you expected as you constructed that building to be able to lease the building? 

41

Mr. RHODES. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. When were you told in this process, no, you can’t 

lease it until there is a master lease signed by the BIA? 

Mr. RHODES. It has been over a year back. 

The CHAIRMAN. And so I assume the tribe had some sort of apoplectic seizure learning that you have built a wonderful new building and can’t lease it until somebody signs something at the BIA. 

Is that right? 

Mr. RHODES. That is true. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. And what did you expect? Did you expect in a 

month or two or six or nine months that somebody would probably 

pay attention to this? 

Mr. RHODES. Well, at the rate the BIA has been responding, we 

hoped it would be 60 to 90 days, but we are still waiting. 

The CHAIRMAN. So it has been over a year that this building sits 

empty. What are you hearing now from the BIA? 

Mr. RHODES. Well, we did have a meeting with the Secretary. We 

do believe that he is going to do something to help us, we had the 

feeling after the meeting. 

The CHAIRMAN. When did you have the meeting? 

Mr. RHODES. I believe it was two months ago, about a month or 

two ago. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I use this photograph just because I have 

seen the building. This is the sort of thing I don’t understand. I 

would say to Assistant Secretary Artman, you know, I don’t have 

the foggiest idea how this happens or why we don’t take steps immediately to correct it. 

I am not suggesting, from the Committee standpoint, that you 

must approve or disapprove something. I am saying you must 

make decisions on things. Somebody has to make decisions. I am 

not surprised that this falls through the cracks, if you don’t even 

have a system that determines how many applications or how 

many processes you have going on. It is just staggering to me that 

in the age of computers, when we are talking in the thousands, not 

millions or hundreds of millions, that we don’t have a system that 

keeps track of all of these things, number one. And number two, 

that we don’t have uniform guidelines in the various regions or procedures in the various regions to follow. 

So Mr. Artman, do you understand the frustration the Governor 

is speaking of? And the frustration I and others have about this? 

Mr. ARTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I not only understand the frustration, but I have felt similar frustration myself when working for my 

own tribe. This is certainly something that we want to help with. 

As I mentioned to you before, we will be, and not just this particular thing, but the entire overall issue. 

The CHAIRMAN. But this issue is not an issue of taking land into 

trust. This is simply a lease. Apparently, there needs to be a master lease approved by the BIA. So this is not a process where you 

need to move land into trust. Somebody has been waiting here for 

a year for the BIA to have a little breakfast, go to work, and do 

some work, and take a look at real things and say, all right, here, 

yes or no. 

So I tell you what. I don’t understand it and I am very disappointed in the people that work for the BIA if they are not able 

42

to do their job. If you don’t have uniform procedures and guidelines 

on how to do things, I understand why it is not done well. But I 

think the Congress and the American people, certainly the tribes 

and this Committee expect better. 

So Mr. Chairman His Horse Is Thunder, you described it on the 

individual level. You described your mother’s situation, and I assume you have the same frustration of just not knowing when this 

paper goes into this abyss, when someone might or might not decide that they will take some action one way or the other. 

Mr. HIS HORSE IS THUNDER. We are really concerned because a 

number of those applications for the tribe’s fee-to-trust have been 

in the application process since 1992. That is a long time. And we 

are getting mixed signals from the Bureau at the national level. 

When Mr. Artman took office, he assured us he would take a look 

at the process and they were going to start processing applications. 

A few months later at a national conference, I believe, and I may 

be corrected on this, Mr. Ragsdale publicly said, ‘‘We are not taking 

any applications; we are not processing any of the applications for 

fee-to-trust.’’ So we have been getting mixed signals from the national office. So we are concerned about this. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask, Mr. Artman, if you would do me a 

favor just on this issue. Would you track down in your agency for 

me, just so that I might understand, when did this tribe file the 

required papers on this building? Who did it go to in the BIA? How 

long has it been sitting on whose desk? Why a year later has presumably nothing been done? Can we try to figure out who is exhibiting this Parkinson’s law, a body at rest stays at rest? 

Mr. ARTMAN. We can certainly do that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Who is engaged in that? 

Mr. ARTMAN. I will take care of that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Murkowski? 

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

There is a lot of frustration this morning from those who have 

appeared to testify, and I thank you all for your appearance and 

for your comments this morning. I do apologize for my tardy arrival. 

I am sorry that I missed your testimony, Mr. Artman. I did review your written testimony. It is frustrating to hear the Chairman’s charge or his request to you, Mr. Artman. Can you give us 

the specifics on this particular facility and what the problem has 

been. My constituents up in the State of Alaska have had frustrations that they have shared with me. One in particular has been 

over Indian reservation roads money that has been approved, and 

yet not released. 

Petersburg down in Southeastern Alaska came to me and said, 

what is it that we have to do? We intervened and were able to finally, after a period of years, get those monies released. We just 

finished that with Chistochina. We again kind of shake the trees 

on that. That problem was resolved after a congressional inquiry. 

Now, we have the Seldovia Tribe that is in a similar situation. 

43

It just seems wrong that we have to have a congressional intervention or inquiry in order to resolve these delays that we can’t understand why the delay, if the approval has been made, when it is 

happening. 

So I bring up the issue of the Indian reservation roads backlog 

to you. I do want to know that these are on your radar screen. I 

do want to know that, again for the third time now, we will ask 

for help with the Seldovia Tribe in processing their IRR money. 

But I am very concerned that it seems to be a case by case specific 

resolution, and that you don’t appear within the BIA to have developed a process to allow for the next community that is awaiting the 

processing of their funding. It doesn’t seem to be getting any better 

is my point to you. 

I understand from your written testimony that the biggest backlog of appraisal requests is in the Alaska region, and you attribute 

this apparently to native organizations requesting appraisals directly from the Office of Appraisal Services, rather than through 

the BIA. Would the backlog be eliminated or reduced in Alaska if 

the native organizations were to directly ask the BIA for an appraisal request? Would this help? 

Mr. ARTMAN. I think certainly the backlog would be reduced if 

that were to happen. We also need to staff up a bit more in appraisals as well. We are also taking a look at if there are any other 

ways to make the process more efficient. Through legal processes, 

is there a way that we can eliminate, reduce or somehow look at 

another form of appraisals that what we are currently using as 

well. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Do you think it makes a difference if you 

go directly through the BIA? 

Mr. ARTMAN. I think it would, yes. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I am going to ask you about a very local 

issue. This is the BIA office in Juneau. It has been for years the 

headquarters for the BIA in the regional office. My office was contacted some months ago to confirm rumors that BIA was going to 

be moving the regional office out of Juneau to Anchorage over a period of 18 months. We didn’t learn about this through the BIA. We 

didn’t learn about it from what you would assume would be the appropriate channels. It was really rumors out on the street, which 

I don’t need to tell you is kind of bad form, and we would certainly 

hope that if in a fact the decision has been made, that we would 

be alerted to that. 

To compound the problem, though, your office told us that the regional office move was only proposed; that there was going to be 

consultation with the Alaska tribes before making a final decision. 

We have recently learned that your regional director, he has essentially stated that the regional office is being moved. In fact, he stated specifically, ‘‘I don’t think there is any doubt about the regional 

office being moved.’’ And in a meeting there in Juneau back in 

July, he indicated that he was under a directive from the Department of Interior to move the regional office to Anchorage. 

My question to you is whether or not the Department of Interior 

directed your regional director, Mr. Cesar, to move the Juneau office. 

Mr. ARTMAN. Okay. Thank you, Senator. 

44

First of all, let me say very plainly and clearly, there is no directive, no directive whatsoever to move the regional office from Juneau to Anchorage. It is something that we are looking into. It is 

unfortunate that——

Senator MURKOWSKI. So is Mr. Cesar mistaken in stating that 

there was a directive? 

Mr. ARTMAN. Yes, he is. It is unfortunate that rumors tend to get 

ahead of the facts. As you may recall, when we said we were going 

to begin to look at this process and only begin to look at this process, I had come up here and informed you of that, along with Senator Stevens and Representative Young as well. 

We held our first consultation session on this issue in Juneau 

this summer. It was a very good consultation session and it was 

attended primarily by Tlingit Haida tribal members, and we certainly understood where they were coming from. We are going to 

be holding a second consultation at AFN for all the tribes. I promise a third meeting to individuals who have voiced concern regarding housing and those issues, where they are going to be taken care 

of. So we are going to actually have three meetings on this. I 

wouldn’t call the second one necessarily a consultation—or third 

one, I am sorry—a consultation, because it is going to be discussing, but it is not with a specific tribe. It is more on a specific 

issue. 

At that point, if it is determined that we still need additional information or additional meetings, those will be held. We are not 

going to rush to a decision on moving the Juneau office. It is something that we want to consider very carefully, look at all the numbers, and weigh the pros and cons of doing so. As you are very familiar with, the distances in Alaska are great, and a lot of the activities that had taken place in Juneau and that have recently 

come up and become new activities have been in place in Anchorage, so there is some synergy there. But customer service is going 

to be first and foremost, and we need to hear from the customers, 

the tribes themselves before we make any determination on where 

we go. 

So there will be no moving trucks pulling up. I take it a few days 

ago they did not, as I believe it was reported they were coming on 

September 30. There has been no directive and I have signed nothing for Mr. Cesar to even move his office to Anchorage. He still 

should be showing up in Juneau on a daily basis. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. So it is your understanding that a decision 

has not been made. If a decision is made to move out of the Juneau 

offices, what kind of a presence within Juneau would you expect to 

remain? You recognize it has to be customer service. You don’t 

have a lot of access from the individuals that live in southeast to 

Anchorage. 

Mr. ARTMAN. Right. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. You are not connected by road. So do you 

have any idea at this point in time what you would keep in Juneau? 

Mr. ARTMAN. If we were to move the offices, I believe right now 

we have approximately 45 employees that are working out of the 

Juneau office. Right now, initial estimates are that there would 

45

still be a force of 20 to 25 people remaining in the Juneau office 

to provide services to the southeast Alaska area. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Let me ask you, this was brought up by 

Mr. Chicks, I believe, who had suggested that perhaps if there 

were time lines imposed or a part of the BIA’s fee-to-trust process 

that this would help with the inordinate delays. Mr. Chicks, you 

are nodding your head. I am assuming that that would help with 

the process if you knew that there were time considerations. Is this 

something that you have looked at as you are attempting to provide a level of better service within the agency? 

Mr. ARTMAN. Yes it is, Senator. In reviewing how our different 

regions handle the fee-to-trust applications, we found that the most 

successful regions impose some sort of a deadline on themselves to 

get things done and stuck to it. We will be coming out with the feeto-trust handbook in a matter of weeks, and that handbook will too 

contain internal deadlines for ourselves for completing different 

phases of the application process. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, I would hope that the deadlines are 

deadlines that are, when you say they are self-imposed, that there 

would also be some self-enforcement there, too. 

Mr. ARTMAN. There will be self-enforcement as well. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. So it is not just a good idea written down 

on paper, but that you actually work to adhere to that. 

Let me ask, and I believe it was Mr. His Horse Is Thunder made 

the comment about the lack of access to the internet due to the litigation that remains out there. Is this one of the issues that continues to lead to the inefficiency in processing so much of what we 

have heard today? 

Mr. ARTMAN. I think it is not only the lack of the internet. There 

are whole business processes that we could take advantage of if we 

had access to the internet. Communications with tribes via them 

filling in forms, on the Indian reservation roads situation specifically that is another one where we could truly take advantage of 

that technology to expedite the process. 

On fee-to-trust appraisals, all those areas can be made faster, 

quicker and more efficient with the use of the internet. E-mail communications would also be beneficial as well. So this inability to 

communicate using the latest technology is hindering our ability to 

provide the best service. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Murkowski follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

Good Morning Mr. Chairman and thank you for holding this oversight hearing on 

administrative backlogs at the Department of the Interior affecting American Indians and Alaska Natives. 

Acting principally through the Secretary, the Assistant Secretary and the Special 

Trustee for American Indians, the Department is charged with the responsibility of 

managing tribal and individual Indian lands, minerals, timber, crops, minerals and 

water. Inefficiencies and backlogs in the Department’s administrative processes 

dealing with these resources are notorious. They have been the subject of complaints 

by Indian beneficiaries for decades. 

There is good reason for these complaints: Indians and Alaska Natives depend on 

the use and development of these resources to pay their bills, raise their families 

and care for their elders. When the Department fails to act, or is slow to act, it affects tribal economies and it affects peoples’ lives. 

46

I am aware that the Department may have problems with backlogs in the areas 

of fee-to-trust applications and leasing approvals. We will hear today what progress, 

if any, has been made at reducing these backlogs. From what I understand, the Department has made significant progress in chipping away at the backlog of probating Indian estates, and that the current probate backlog may be eliminated by 

Fiscal Year 2009. If that’s so, I’d like to hear more about how this was accomplished. 

I think that some of the backlogs in the fee-to-trust process are caused by legal 

requirements applicable to the process, like, for instance, NEPA compliance, but 

some contend that some of the backlog in this area has been deliberate, especially 

with regard to off-reservation acquisitions. 

Some of the written testimony has pointed a finger at the impact of individual 

Indian land fractionation, and I am curious to hear more about what can be done 

to deal with that problem. 

Finally, while most of these problems seem to be more acute in the lower 48 

states than in my home State of Alaska, I must say that we have some of our own 

backlog problems up there as well. Hopefully Mr. Artman will be able to explain 

how those will be handled by the Department. 

I would like to thank the witnesses before us today who traveled so far to be here 

and I look forward to their testimony.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Murkowski, thank you very much. 

Mr. Artman, we have called you down here. You are a relative 

newcomer to your job, so I don’t want you to leave here believing 

that we have created a condition in which you no longer want to 

serve in public office. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. When I use the term incompetence and other 

terms, I feel very strongly. And I have felt this for a long time, long 

before you came to the BIA. I think there are parts of the BIA that 

are completely dysfunctional. I don’t know why. I have not gone out 

to be able to visit with a lot of these employees. But there is something in that system that just seems dysfunctional to me. 

So you have been in place a relatively few number of months. I 

want you to succeed. Our point in calling you up here and hearing 

the stories is not to hope that you fail, but it is to hope that you 

succeed and to have you hear first hand things that just cannot be 

allowed to continue. Either we are going to have an agency that 

works, or maybe we need some sort of dramatic wholesale change. 

Maybe you take the agency apart, get rid of it, start a new agency 

someplace with new people. I don’t know. But somehow, this has 

to be working. 

It is not just in this area. It is in area after area after area we 

find that the work hasn’t been done that is just basic. I mean, I 

went to graduate school and got an MBA and I am a slave to a 

chart board. I want to diagram everything. I want to organize everything. But the fact is then I see that after all these years there 

is not even a system that will tell you, as Assistant Secretary, how 

many applications are pending on the land-into-trust system. Because each region is handling it differently, we don’t necessarily 

have a collection mechanism that we are confident of. Boy, you 

know, it is a herculean task that you face to try to fix this. 

Again, I want you to succeed and I supported your nomination 

because you have all of the capability of succeeding, in my judgment. But you are running an agency that I think is very resistant 

to change. I hope the word goes out to everyone in that agency. We 

admire the people who work hard and try to do a good job. I am 

sure you have a lot of employees that wake up every day that are 

47

passionately committed to the mission, and God bless them. We 

thank them. But whoever is sitting on all these things and not 

doing their job, let me have a few other words for them. I hope you 

will as well. But let’s fix all of this. 

I want to call you back in six months, and Senator Murkowski 

and I would like to evaluate in six months what progress has been 

made, and how will tribes and others have some assurance that 

when their applications go into this deep abyss somehow that 

someone will actually have it, work it, and make a judgment about 

it. I hope that you will work with us, work with the Committee, 

Mr. Artman, to achieve those results. 

Now again, don’t leave here despondent about this hearing. 

Leave here I hope with the mind set that this hearing is a very 

constructive charge to an agency that has to improve. You are new 

enough to make sure that happens. Is that something you feel good 

about? 

Mr. ARTMAN. I do, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. It wasn’t too long 

ago that I would have been sitting down here. So I can certainly 

understand what my fellow panelists are feeling and who they represent and what they are feeling. I took this job not only because 

the President asked, but when the President asked, I thought this 

was something that we could leave behind as a good legacy for him 

as well. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Murkowski? 

Senator MURKOWSKI. No, but Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate 

you adding that last comment, because I think it must be very difficult to come and listen and, as you say, having been on the other 

side, feel the pain, if you will. It is a very difficult task, but I think 

part of our frustration here is, as it was pointed out, is that so 

many of these are not independent problems, whether it is the 

problems with the land appraisals, with the probates, with the EIS, 

with the Indian reservation roads. They are connected in the sense 

that you have a level of oversight from an agency that is struggling. 

Maybe we need to do more directly with you and the agency to 

see that improvement. But we know that with every delay, it is not 

just the number of appraisals that are in the backlog. It has an impact to families, to communities, and our task is to figure out how 

we resolve the backlogs so that these families and these communities can move forward. So we will work with you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Bigelow, did you want add a final comment? 

Mr. BIGELOW. Yes, I did, Mr. Chairman. I first of all want to 

thank you for the opportunity that this has presented for us to 

have our issue heard. I would also like to be on that list of those 

invited back so I could testify on the positive aspects of what has 

occurred from this action here today. So if the opportunity presents 

itself, Mr. Chairman, I would just present that to you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bigelow, that sounds like a clever challenge. 

Mr. BIGELOW. Thank you, sir. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Are you a lawyer? 

Mr. BIGELOW. No, sir. I am a 12th grade educated high school 

guy who is trying to make his way in life. 

48

The CHAIRMAN. But pretty clever. 

Mr. BIGELOW. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. We will invite you back. 

Mr. BIGELOW. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. RHODES. Mr. Chairman, may I make a comment? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Governor, do you wish to react? 

Mr. RHODES. With regards to a possible solution, the Navajo Nation has a Federal statutory provision under 25 U.S.C. 415(e) that 

grants the tribe authority to review and approve a wide variety of 

on-reservation leases upon issuance of tribal regulations approved 

by the Secretary. The community is interested in seeking a similar 

provision, and we believe that the Committee might view this provision as a potential solution for all Indian Country. We look forward to working with your staff in developing such legislation. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Governor, thank you very much. 

Mr. Artman, I am not suggesting you have to move into this 

building, but I am suggesting that you ought to fix it so that tribe 

can lease this building. 

Thank you very much. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:55 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(49)

APPENDIX


1004app1.eps
50


1004s1.eps
51


1004s2.eps
52


1004s3.eps
53


1004s4.eps
54


1004s5.eps
55


1004s6.eps
56


1004s7.eps
57


1004s8.eps
58


1004s9.eps
59


1004s10.eps
60


1004s11.eps
61


1004s12.eps
62


1004m1.eps
63


1004m2.eps
64


1004m3.eps
65


1004m4.eps
66


1004m5.eps
67


1004m6.eps
68


1004m7.eps
69


1004m8.eps
70


1004m9.eps
71


1004m10.eps
72


1004m11.eps
73


1004m12.eps
74


1004m13.eps
75


1004m14.eps
76


1004m15.eps
77


1004l1.eps
78


1004l2.eps
79


1004l3.eps
80


1004l4.eps
81


1004l5.eps
82


1004l6.eps
83


1004l7.eps
84


1004l8.eps
85


1004l9.eps
86


1004l10.eps
87


1004l11.eps
88


1004l12.eps 1004l13.eps
89


1004l14.eps
90


1004l15.eps
91


1004l16.eps
92


1004cc1.eps
93


1004cc2.eps
94


1004cc3.eps
95


1004cc4.eps
96


1004cc5.eps
97


1004cc6.eps
98


1004cc7.eps
99


1004cc8.eps
100


1004cc9.eps
101


1004cc10.eps
102


1004cc11.eps
103


1004cc12.eps
104


1004cc13.eps
105


1004cc14.eps
106


1004cc15.eps
107


1004cc16.eps
108


1004sc1.eps
109


1004sc2.eps
110


1004sc3.eps
111


1004n1.eps
112


1004n2.eps
113


1004n3.eps
114


1004n4.eps
115


1004n5.eps
116


1004n6.eps
117


1004n7.eps
118


1004n8.eps 1004n9.eps 1004n10.eps
119


1004n11.eps
120


1004n12.eps
121


1004p1.eps
122


1004e1.eps
123


1004e2.eps
124


1004e3.eps
125


1004e4.eps
126


1004e5.eps
127


1004e6.eps
128


1004p2.eps
129


1004p3.eps
130


1004p4.eps
131

* Responses to written questions were not available at the time this hearing went to press. 

WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO CARL J. ARTMAN * 

Backlogs 

Question 1. What is the current backlog with land-into-trust applications (both on 

and off reservation); environmental impact statements; appraisals; and commercial 

lease approvals?


1004p5.eps
132

Question 2. Why is there a backlog with land-into-trust applications (both on and 

off reservation); environmental impact statements; appraisals; and commercial lease 

approvals?

Question 3. How many vacancies currently exist at the Department for positions 

that are involved in the approval of land-into-trust applications (both on and off reservation); environmental impact statements; appraisals; and commercial lease approvals?

Question 4. What is the Department doing to address the backlogs that exist?

Land Into Trust

Question 5. How does the BIA track the various land-into-trust applications? Is 

there a system in place that allows you to determine the status of any application 

that is pending in any Agency or Regional or Central office of the Department?

Question 6. Does any tracking system include any timelines, time targets or other 

measurement tools to ensuring that an application is being timely processed?

Question 7. You testified that there are 1,211 pending land into trust applications, 

but that 1,100 are not yet ripe for decision. Why are these 1,100 applications not 

ready for a decision?

Question 8. What is the process by which off-reservation land-into-trust applications are processed at the Department?

Question 9. You testified that regarding applications for off-reservation land-intotrust applications, there are currently 37–43 applications pending here in the Central Office, and that all that is left to do is for you or the Secretary to make a final 

decision on whether to approve them. What is taking so long to make those decisions and when can decisions on these applications be expected?

Question 10. Some tribal leaders have informed the Committee that Associate 

Deputy Secretary, Jim Cason, has made statements on several occasions to tribes 

asking why tribes want the Department to take land into trust for them when the 

Department ends up mismanaging the land and being sued by tribes for the mismanagement. Is this the view of the Department and BIA towards tribal land-intotrust applications?

Question 11. You testified that regulations governing land-into-trust applications 

for off-reservation gaming have been finalized and are pending final approval by the 

Administration before being published in the Federal Register. When will these regulations be published? Do you believe these regulations will help relieve the backlog?

Question 12. The Committee was informed that the Department sent letters to 

tribes informing them that Interior is implementing a new process for considering 

land-into-trust applications that involve gaming. Can you describe this policy and 

how it is being implemented?

Question 13. What is your view about the role local jurisdictions (cities, counties) 

should play in the land acquisition process—either for gaming or non-gaming purposes? (Senator Feinstein)

Question 14. In your view, what are the parameters that determine a tribe’s historical connection to land sought to be placed in trust? (Senator Feinstein)

Question 15. Because of the time and expense involved in the effort to acquire new 

lands for casino projects, do you think that the Department or the NIGC should first 

determine whether particular lands are ‘‘Indian lands’’ under section 4 of IGRA, before the Department proceeds with a fee to trust application and the related NEPA 

process? (Senator Feinstein)

Question 16. When there is no time deadline, when, if at all, is an official required 

to make a decision on a completed application to take land into trust? Is there any 

requirement that the decision on a land-into-trust application be made in a reasonable time? (Senator Schumer)

Question 17. It appears that significant delay will serve to increase the cost of any 

project, thereby having the ultimate effect of making the project economically unsound. What effects might significant delays in decision making have on the costs 

of a project? (Senator Schumer)

Question 18. The St. Regis Mohawk Tribe of New York has submitted an application to have 30 acres of land taken into trust. It has completed all of its paperwork, 

enjoys broad support in its region and from the State, and in fact is the only tribe 

to have completed the two-part determination process under Section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. It is simply waiting for a final decision to be made. 

However, the Department of the Interior has failed to make a decision, or to indiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:40 Feb 06, 2008 Jkt 039675 PO 00000 Frm 00136 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\39675.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
133

cate a timeline for such. Is it, under these circumstances, appropriate it for DOI to 

defer the decision without approving or denying? What requirements are imposed 

on the Department with respect to acting on an application? Can it fail to act on 

an application indefinitely? (Senator Schumer)

Environmental Impact Statements

Question 19. How many Draft Environmental Impact Statements are pending at 

the Department? How long have these been pending and when will decisions be 

made on them?

Question 20. The Committee was informed that the Department has an internal 

policy that any Draft Environmental Impact Statements that are over a year old are 

‘‘stale’’ and will need to be updated and reviewed further before the Department will 

issue them for public review and comment. Is this true? If so, what internal policies 

exist to ensure that these Draft Environmental Impact Statements are issued within a year?

Question 21. What is the Department’s obligation to act in a timely manner regarding the NEPA process? Does the Department have the authority to delay ministerial actions, as it has delayed issuing the Notice of Availability on the environmental impact statement submitted with the application of the Stockbridge Munsee 

Tribe? (Senator Schumer)

Æ