DDDDDd 

 GAO-07-23R BLM Indian Allotments 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

October 20, 2006 

The Honorable Conrad Burns 

Chairman 

The Honorable Byron L. Dorgan 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Charles H. Taylor 

Chairman 

The Honorable Norman D. Dicks 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives 

Subject: Indian Issues: BLM’s Program for Issuing Individual Indian Allotments 

on Public Lands Is No Longer Viable

Beginning in the late nineteenth century the federal government began an effort to 

assimilate Indians by transferring them from communal tribal existence to individual 

land ownership. The Act of February 8, 1887, commonly referred to as the General 

Allotment Act, initiated the federal government’s Indian allotment policy.1

 The act 

authorized the President to allot parcels of land to individual Indians—generally in 

sizes of 40, 80, or 160 acres—on Indian reservations and on public lands. The act was 

implemented by the Department of the Interior’s (Interior) Bureau of Indian Affairs 

(BIA) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM).2

 Under this authority, BIA issued 

millions of acres of individual allotments on Indian reservations, and BLM issued 

thousands of acres of individual Indian allotments on public lands. However, in 1934, 

the Indian Reorganization Act largely reversed the federal government’s Indian 

allotment policy and replaced it with a policy that encouraged tribal self-governance.3

 

Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act also provided the Secretary of the Interior 

new authority to acquire land, on and off reservations, on behalf of federally 

 

1

Act of February 8, 1887, ch. 119, 24 Stat. 388 (1887) (codified as amended at 25 U.S.C. § 331, et seq.). 

2

At the time of the act, BLM did not exist. Its predecessor, the General Land Office, was the entity that 

implemented the act from 1887 to 1946. In 1946, the General Land Office was merged with another 

federal agency, the U.S. Grazing Service, to form BLM within Interior. 

3

Act of June 18, 1934, ch. 576, 48 Stat. 984 (1934) (codified as amended at 25 U.S.C. §§ 461-479). 
Page 2 GAO-07-23R BLM Indian Allotments

 

recognized tribes or their members. While the Indian Reorganization Act ended BIA’s 

authority to issue allotments on Indian reservations, it did not address BLM’s 

authority to issue allotments on public lands. Almost 120 years after the 1887 General 

Allotment Act, BLM still retains that authority and questions have been raised about 

the continued need for it. 

A number of public land laws and other federal actions over the past 75 years have 

affected BLM’s Indian allotment program, generally limiting the land available for 

allotment. The Act of June 28, 1934, commonly referred to as the Taylor Grazing Act, 

authorized the Secretary of the Interior to establish up to 80 million acres of grazing 

districts in “vacant, unappropriated, and unreserved lands” and authorized the 

classification of those lands.4

 In classifying land, BLM must examine the land to 

determine whether it is more valuable or suitable for disposal under a public land law 

(e.g., as an Indian allotment) than for retention in federal ownership for management 

purposes. In 1976, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act reoriented BLM 

from a land disposal to a land management organization.5

 Under the act, “public 

lands [are to] be retained in Federal ownership, unless as a result of the land use 

planning procedure ... it is determined that disposal of a particular parcel will serve 

the national interest.” 

Under BLM’s current regulations and policies for the Indian allotment program, those 

applying for Indian allotments on public lands must identify the land on which they 

wish to settle and file an application, including certification of Indian eligibility, with 

the local BLM office.6

 Applications must include an economic plan for developing the 

land. BLM reviews the applications and classifies the land requested if necessary. If 

approved, applicants have a 2-year period to demonstrate their ability to sustain 

themselves and their families on the land—a process referred to as “proving-up.” 

BLM must periodically monitor applicants during this period to ensure they are 

complying with their obligations. If applicants successfully complete this 2-year 

period, BLM issues them a patent, or title, to the land, which is held in trust status. 

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

tribes or individual Indians and the land is no longer subject to state and local 

property taxes and zoning ordinances. 

BIA and the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) also play a role in this process. 

BIA must certify that those applying for Indian allotments are eligible, meaning that 

they are “... a recognized member of an Indian tribe or [are] entitled to be so 

recognized.” In addition, BIA is responsible for managing all trust lands, including 

Indian allotments. BIA has a range of responsibilities over these lands, including 

probate and real estate services. The IBLA, the Interior administrative review body 

for BLM, is responsible for adjudicating all administrative appeals on Indian 

allotment decisions, among other duties. 

4

Act of June 28, 1934, ch. 865, 48 Stat. 1269 (1934). 

5

Pub. L. No. 94-579, 90 Stat. 2743 (1976) (codified as amended at 43 U.S.C. §§ 1701-1785). 

6

43 C.F.R. pt. 2530. In addition, BLM has issued a variety of guidance documents on the Indian 

allotment program. 
Page 3 GAO-07-23R BLM Indian Allotments

 

Individual Indian allotments present a unique management challenge for BIA—the 

multiple ownership of a single property (fractionation). In an earlier report on Indian 

land ownership profiles at select reservations, we found that the 1887 allotment act 

provided, among other things, that the heirs of an Indian who had been allocated land 

would inherit the decedent’s ownership interests in the land.7

 Because of this 

provision, the ownership of some allotted land has continually become fractionated 

as ownership interests have passed from generation to generation. With fractionated 

land, development (e.g., building a home site) can be difficult because it may require 

agreement among multiple ownership interests of the development plan. In some 

cases, fractionated lands have up to several hundred ownership interests. In 

addition, fractionated land creates increased management responsibilities for BIA 

because BIA must work with growing ownership interests on the same parcel of land, 

for example, in distributing mineral royalties. With the passage of the Indian Land 

Consolidation Act of 1983, the federal government has been trying to reduce the 

problem of fractionation by consolidating individual Indian land ownership interests 

into tribal ownership.8

 A 2000 amendment to the 1983 act established a fund to assist 

tribes in buying back fractional interests in reservation lands.9 

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

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

implementing its land in trust regulations.10 We issued our report in July 2006.11 In 

response to the direction in the House report and subsequent discussions with your 

offices, we also agreed to assess the extent to which BLM’s program for issuing 

allotments to individual Indians on public lands is still viable. This correspondence 

transmits the results of our review of BLM’s Indian allotment authority. In addition, 

we are providing some supplementary information to our July 2006 report on the 

amount of land held in trust for newly recognized and restored tribes and an 

identification of landless tribes (encl. II). 

In conducting our work, we reviewed applicable laws, regulations, and policies. We 

met with BLM’s Lands and Realty staff in Washington, D.C., to discuss the program. 

We requested information on the number of approved, denied, and pending Indian 

allotment applications from BLM’s LR2000 database—a system with information on 

the programs and lands BLM manages—over a 20-year period between January 1, 

1986, and January 1, 2006, to ascertain the amount of Indian allotment activity. 

However, BLM was only able to provide data through January 2002 because of 

security issues related to an ongoing federal court case, and it identified 94 possible 

7

GAO, Indian Programs: Profile of Land Ownership at 12 Reservations, GAO/RCED-92-96BR 

(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 10, 1992). 

8

Pub. L. No. 97-459, 96 Stat. 2517 (1983) (codified as amended at 25 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2221). 

9

Indian Land Consolidation Act Amendments of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-462, §§ 103, 216, 114 Stat. 1991, 

2002 (2000) (codified at 25 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2215). 

10H.R. Rep. No. 109-80, at 68 (2005). 

11GAO, Indian Issues: BIA’s Efforts to Impose Time Frames and Collect Better Data Should Improve 

the Processing of Land in Trust Applications, GAO-06-781 (Washington, D.C.: July 28, 2006). 
Page 4 GAO-07-23R BLM Indian Allotments

allotment applications during this period. We attempted to confirm the LR2000 data 

along with any other allotment activity, including the period not covered by LR2000, 

with BLM state offices by e-mail and telephone. We conducted one site visit at the 

Eastern States Office in Springfield, Virginia, to interview staff and review Indian 

allotment case files. Of the 94 possible applications identified by LR2000, we were 

able to positively confirm that 11 were applications for initial Indian allotments 

within the scope of our review, 2 were applications for initial Indian allotments 

outside the scope of our review, and 22 were modifications to existing allotments and 

therefore outside the scope of our review. We could not readily confirm the 

remaining 59 applications because of difficulty in locating and retrieving files. We 

also reviewed applicable decisions by the IBLA and identified IBLA decisions that 

involved BLM decisions on 11 initial Indian allotment applications that fell within our 

time frame. The 22 confirmed applications within our time frame constitute the 

scope of our review of allotment applications. Enclosure I provides a more detailed 

description of our scope and methodology. We conducted our work between July 

and September 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. 

Results in Brief 

BLM’s program for issuing Indian allotments on public lands is no longer viable 

because generally no currently available lands qualify for allotment; and therefore, 

the program does not offer a reasonable opportunity of providing benefits for those 

applying for allotments. Specifically, the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, the land 

management plans developed under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 

1976, and other federal actions have withdrawn nearly all public land in the United 

States from availability for allotment. In addition, the public land that has been 

classified for disposal is not suitable for Indian allotments because the land cannot 

support families as required by the allotment program, according to BLM officials and 

documents. The public land available for allotment that could support a family has 

generally been awarded over the past 120 years. Despite the lack of land available for 

release, BLM estimates that it receives an average of one to five allotment 

applications per year. For the 22 allotment applications we reviewed, BLM denied 18, 

approved 2, and 2 were withdrawn by the applicants. In addition, BLM officials could 

not recall any approvals for allotments during the past 20 years other than the two 

approvals in Arizona in 1990, more than 15 years ago. Interior continues to bear the 

administrative burden of processing these Indian allotment applications even though 

applicants have little chance of approval. Continuing to issue Indian allotments also 

runs counter to the federal government’s actions since 1983 to consolidate Indian 

land holdings. 

Because the allotment of public lands to Indian applicants is no longer an efficient 

and effective program that provides those applying for benefits with a reasonable 

chance of approval and because it runs counter to Indian land consolidation, we are 

recommending that the Secretary of the Interior develop a proposal for the Congress 

to repeal section 4 of the 1887 General Allotment Act, which provides BLM the 

authority to issue Indian allotments on public lands. In commenting on the draft of 

this correspondence, Interior agreed with our findings and recommendation. See 

enclosure III for Interior’s written comments. 
Page 5 GAO-07-23R BLM Indian Allotments

 

Background 

The General Allotment Act gave the President the authority to issue allotments to 

Indians on Indian reservations and on public lands. Specifically, the act states: 

... the President of the United States be, and he hereby is, authorized, whenever in his opinion 

any reservation or any part thereof of such Indians is advantageous for agricultural and grazing 

purposes, to cause said reservation, or any part thereof, to be surveyed, or resurveyed if 

necessary, and to allot the lands in said reservation in severalty to any Indian located thereon ...12 

That where any Indian not residing upon a reservation, or for whose tribe no reservation has been 

provided by treaty, act of Congress, or executive order, shall make settlement upon any surveyed 

or unsurveyed lands of the United States not otherwise appropriated, he or she shall be entitled 

... to have the same allotted to him or her, and to his or her children, in quantities and manner as 

provided in this act for Indians residing upon reservations ...13

Lands not allotted on reservations were often opened by subsequent acts of Congress 

for purchase by non-Indians as homesteads. 

Authority to issue Indian allotments was vested in the Secretary of the Interior, who 

delegated authority to BIA for lands on Indian reservations and to BLM for public 

lands.14 Congress ended BIA’s authority to issue allotments on Indian reservations as 

part of the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act, but did not address BLM’s authority. 

Current regulations specify the following maximum amount of land that can be 

applied for by a single applicant and permissible uses: 

• Up to 40 acres of irrigable land,15

 

• Up to 80 acres of nonirrigable agricultural land,16 and 

• Up to 160 acres of nonirrigable grazing land.17

To apply for an Indian allotment, applicants must first identify the land for which they 

are applying and obtain a certificate of eligibility from BIA showing that they are 

12General Allotment Act § 1 (emphasis added). This authority applied to BIA. 

13General Allotment Act § 4 (emphasis added). This authority applied to BLM. 

 

14Section 31 of the Act of June 25, 1910, 36 Stat. 863 (1910) (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 337) authorizes the 

Secretary of the Interior to issue Indian allotments within national forests if the Secretary of 

Agriculture, acting through the U.S. Forest Service, determines that the lands are more valuable for 

agricultural or grazing purposes than for timber. As with BLM’s allotment authority, the Indian 

Reorganization Act did not address this authority to issue Indian allotments. We did not review the 

Forest Service process since it involves a separate statute and another federal agency. The applicable 

regulations are at 43 C.F.R. pt. 2533. 

 

15Irrigable land is defined in the regulations as land susceptible of successful irrigation at a reasonable 

cost from any known source of water supply. 

16Nonirrigable agricultural land is defined in the regulations as land upon which agricultural crops can 

be profitably raised without irrigation. 

17Grazing land is defined in the regulations as land that cannot be profitably devoted to any agricultural 

use other than grazing. 
Page 6 GAO-07-23R BLM Indian Allotments

 

either “... a recognized member of an Indian tribe or [are] entitled to be so 

recognized” and submit that certificate, together with their allotment application, to a 

local BLM office serving the area. The application must include, among other things, 

plans for developing the land and any previous allotments received. If necessary, 

applicants must petition BLM to have the land classified for disposal under the act. 

After BLM receives the application, it generally begins with the classification process. 

Classification can take several months and BLM must consider the (1) physical 

suitability of the land for the proposed classification, which requires BLM to inspect 

the proposed allotment; (2) present and potential future land use; (3) consistency 

with state and local programs, plans, and zoning; and (4) consistency with federal 

programs and policies.18 BLM also must confirm that the intended use of the land 

complies with environmental laws. 

If the land is classified for disposal under the act and the land and the applicant meet 

the other requirements in the regulations, a certificate of allotment is issued. At this 

point, applicants must live on the land for 2 years to prove they can sustain 

themselves and their families, if any, solely from either farming or grazing. 

Applicants may not use any other sources of income to supplement their earnings 

from the land. BLM must periodically visit during this time to ensure that applicants 

are, in fact, residing on the land and following the economic development plan. If at 

the end of this 2-year period applicants have proven that they can sustain themselves 

and their families on the land, then BLM issues a trust patent, or title, to the applicant 

and the allotment process is concluded. The trust patent is held in trust by the 

federal government.19

 

The more widely known and commonly used process for tribes and individual Indians 

to acquire new trust property is through BIA’s land in trust process in 25 C.F.R. part 

151. Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act provided the Secretary of the Interior 

the discretionary authority to take land in trust on behalf of federally recognized 

tribes or their members. Specifically, section 5 states: 

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

through purchase, relinquishment, gift, exchange, or assignment, any interest in lands, 

water rights or surface rights to lands, within or without existing reservations ... for 

the purpose of providing land for the Indians. ... Title to any lands or rights acquired 

pursuant to this Act shall be taken in the name of the United States in trust for the 

Indian tribe or individual Indian for which the land is acquired, and such lands or 

rights shall be exempt from State and local taxation.

20

1843 C.F.R. § 2410.1. 

19The General Allotment Act required newly allotted land to be held in trust status for 25 years. After 

this period, BLM would issue a fee patent to the property owner and the government would relinquish 

all management responsibilities over the land. Executive orders and orders of the Secretary of the 

Interior have extended the 25-year period. See 25 C.F.R. ch. I, app. 

20Indian Reorganization Act § 5 (emphasis added). 
Page 7 GAO-07-23R BLM Indian Allotments

 

In our July 2006 report, we reviewed BIA’s land in trust process.21 Specifically, we 

reviewed all of the land in trust applications decided by BIA in fiscal year 2005. Of 

the 87 applications with BIA decisions in fiscal year 2005, 78 applications were from 

tribes covering about 4,800 acres and 9 applications were from individual Indians 

covering about 1,000 acres. 

BLM’s Program for Issuing Indian Allotments Is No Longer Viable 

BLM’s program for issuing Indian allotments on public lands is no longer viable 

because over time federal laws and actions have withdrawn many of these lands from 

disposal as allotments or BLM has awarded available lands as allotments. 

Consequently, the program does not offer a reasonable chance of providing benefits 

for those seeking allotments. In particular, the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 and two 

executive orders issued in the mid-1930s implementing that law withdrew most 

public lands from disposal until such lands could be classified. The executive orders, 

in 1934 and 1935, carried out the requirements of the Taylor Grazing Act by requiring 

the classification of all public lands in 24 states, mostly in the West.22 As a result, 

public lands were no longer presumed to be available for Indian allotments. 

Furthermore, the land use plans developed under the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976 place further limitations on the land available for allotment. 

The public land classified for disposal and currently available is not suitable for 

Indian allotments because the land could not support an individual Indian or family 

as required by the allotment program, according to BLM officials and documents. 

Suitable public land that could support an individual Indian or family largely has been 

awarded over the past 120 years. According to a 1964 BLM guide to the Indian 

allotment process, most of the lands having “significant agricultural values” had 

already been disposed of. In a June 1967 bulletin, BLM stated that “almost all of the 

good land is owned privately” and “there is very little chance of finding land that is 

suitable for an Indian allotment.” In a November 2004 paper recommending a 

moratorium on the filing of new Indian allotment applications, BLM’s Lands and 

Realty staff identified no acres available for disposal that meet the requirements of 

the General Allotment Act.23 Finally, according to an undated Indian allotment fact 

sheet provided by the Nevada State Office, “most of the public domain lands BLM 

administers are the lands no one else wanted, and they are not capable of supporting 

sustained agricultural production.” BLM denied 18 of the 22 applications we were 

able to confirm and approved 2 in Arizona in 1990. The remaining two applications 

21GAO-06-781. 

22Executive Order 6910, issued November 26, 1934, and Executive Order 6964, issued February 5, 1935. 

The former temporarily withdrew public lands in 12 western states—Arizona, California, Colorado, 

Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming—

“from settlement, location, sale or entry” until such lands were classified for their most useful purpose 

and for “conservation and development of natural resources.” The latter temporarily withdrew public 

lands in 12 additional states—Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Washington, and Wisconsin—for classification. 

23We were not able to independently confirm this fact. According to BLM Lands and Realty staff, these 

data were drawn from an ad hoc query to BLM state offices in the mid-1990s, for which there is no 

documentation, but staff added that data might not be entirely accurate. 
Page 8 GAO-07-23R BLM Indian Allotments

 

were withdrawn by the applicant. It denied most Indian allotment applications 

because the land did not qualify for allotment. 

Although generally no land qualifies for Indian allotments, Interior continues to bear 

an administrative burden in processing allotment applications. BLM must process 

allotment applications—an average of one to five allotments annually, according to 

BLM estimates—even though BLM almost always denies them. In addition to 

processing applications, BLM officials said they also field periodic inquiries from the 

public about the Indian allotment program and how to apply for an allotment. BLM 

officials added that they could not recall any approvals for Indian allotments over the 

past 20 years, other than the two approvals in Arizona in 1990, more than 15 year ago. 

BIA, and, potentially the IBLA, also must devote resources to the allotment program. 

BIA is responsible for certifying that an allotment applicant is “... a recognized 

member of an Indian tribe or is entitled to be so recognized.” In addition, BIA must 

manage Indian allotments once they are held in trust status, which includes 

responsibilities such as probate and real estate services. In addition, a number of 

Indian allotment decisions have been administratively appealed to the IBLA, which 

has generally affirmed BLM decisions to deny Indian allotment applications. In 

nearly all of the 31 appeal cases we identified, the IBLA affirmed BLM’s decision to 

deny the application.24 The applications were generally denied because the land did 

not qualify for an allotment. 

In addition to posing an administrative burden, the allotment program runs counter to 

the federal government’s actions to consolidate Indian land holdings. Over time, the 

ownership of individual Indian allotments has become fractionated through 

inheritance laws. This fractionation has resulted in difficulties in managing these 

lands. Retaining BLM’s authority to issue Indian allotments on public lands 

potentially leads to the same problems allotments have caused on reservations by 

increasing fractional ownership and the administrative burden for the federal 

government in managing these lands.25

BLM officials have recognized the problems with the Indian allotment program and 

have offered suggestions for eliminating it. For example, in response to a 

departmental request in the late 1990s, BLM included the allotment authority in a list 

of laws it recommended that Congress should modify or repeal. However, Interior 

did not officially submit this list to Congress, according to BLM Lands and Realty 

24Only 3 of the 31 IBLA decisions we identified were made in the last 20 years—(1) a January 21, 1993, 

decision affirming the denial of one application in California (Ramona L. Randa, 125 IBLA 153 

(1993)), (2) a July 29, 1996, decision affirming the denial of two applications in New Mexico (Lehman 

Perkaquanart, 136 IBLA 182 (1996)), and (3) a February 3, 2003, decision affirming the denial of eight 

applications in Montana (Jane Delorme, 158 IBLA 260 (2003)). These 3 decisions involved 11 of the 22 

Indian allotment applications we reviewed from the past 20 years. The remaining 28 decisions were 

prior to January 1, 1986, and they involved about 300 additional allotment applications. A January 21, 

1983, decision involved 180 applications (George L. Clay Lee, 70 IBLA 196 (1983)). 

25Other evidence of this shifting toward land consolidation can be seen at BIA, which is considering 

changes to its land in trust regulations that would essentially halt the processing of individual land in 

trust applications. 
Page 9 GAO-07-23R BLM Indian Allotments

staff. More recently, in November 2004, BLM Lands and Realty staff issued a paper to 

the Associate Deputy Secretary of the Interior on the allotment program that offered 

recommendations for eliminating it, including a Secretarial Order placing a 

moratorium on the filing of allotment applications and removing the existing 

regulations. BLM Lands and Realty staff informed us that in reviewing these 

recommendations, Interior’s Office of the Solicitor determined that none of the 

recommendations offered a viable way to eliminate the program because none of 

them repealed the law itself. As long as the authority remains in law, the Office of the 

Solicitor concluded, BLM would be required to process new applications. BLM has 

not pursued any further options since 2004 because of greater priorities in other areas 

and the potential of attracting unwanted attention to the program and possibly more 

applications by highlighting its existence, according to BLM Lands and Realty staff. 

Conclusions 

BLM’s program to issue individual Indian allotments on public lands has become 

obsolete with the passage of time and subsequent congressional actions. Thousands 

of individual Indian allotments were granted on public lands from 1887 to 1934, under 

the federal government’s Indian allotment policy. However, in 1934, the Indian 

Reorganization Act ended the Indian allotment policy, while at the same time it 

provided the Secretary of the Interior with new authority to acquire land in trust, on 

and off reservations, on behalf of federally recognized tribes or their members. 

Under the Taylor Grazing Act, which was enacted 10 days after the Indian 

Reorganization Act, and implementing executive orders, large portions of public 

lands were no longer available for Indian allotments. More recently, under the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, additional public lands have been 

removed from being available for Indian allotments. In addition, the allotment 

program runs counter to the federal government’s continuing effort to address the 

fractionation problem of individual allotments by trying to consolidate Indian land 

holdings into tribal ownership. 

Federal programs should be effective and efficient, and should provide a reasonable 

chance for applicants to receive benefits for which they apply. By these measures, 

BLM’s Indian allotment program is no longer viable. Those applying to BLM for 

Indian allotments on public lands have no reasonable chance of being approved 

because available land for allotments is almost nonexistent. Nevertheless, BLM 

continues to receive applications for Indian allotments, and it and other Interior 

agencies must commit resources to processing them. As a result, the allotment 

program draws resources away from Interior’s higher priorities. Currently, the more 

effective and appropriate mechanism for Indians to receive additional trust acreage is 

through BIA’s land in trust process under 25 C.F.R. part 151. 

Recommendation for Executive Action 

We are recommending that the Secretary of the Interior develop a proposal for the 

Congress to repeal section 4 of the 1887 General Allotment Act, which provides BLM 

the authority to issue Indian allotments on public lands. 
Page 10 GAO-07-23R BLM Indian Allotments

Agency Comments 

Interior’s Acting Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management commented 

on a draft of this correspondence in a letter dated September 26, 2006 (see encl. III). 

Interior agreed with our findings and recommendation. 

--- --- --- --- --- 

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional committees, the 

Secretary of the Interior, the Acting Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals 

Management, the BLM Director, BLM state offices, and other interested parties. We 

will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be 

available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 

512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional 

Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff 

who made major contributions to this report are listed in enclosure IV. 

Robin M. Nazzaro 

Director, Natural Resources and Environment 
Page 11 GAO-07-23R BLM Indian Allotments

 

Enclosure I 

Scope and Methodology 

We reviewed applicable laws, regulations, and policies concerning the authority of 

the Department of the Interior’s (Interior) Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to 

issue Indian allotments on public lands. We met with BLM Lands and Realty staff in 

Washington, D.C., to discuss their perspectives on the Indian allotment program, 

particularly a November 2004 paper issued by this office that contains 

recommendations for eliminating the program.26

 

To collect the case-specific data on approved, denied, and pending Indian allotment 

applications from January 1, 1986, through January 1, 2006, we requested and Interior 

provided a list from its LR2000 database—a system with information on the programs 

and lands managed by BLM—that contained 94 cases identified as Indian allotments. 

The list also contained an additional 2,352 cases categorized as Indian allotments for 

the state of New Mexico, but BLM officials said these cases were part of a federal 

court settlement and therefore not allotments. Interior queried the database for all 

Indian allotments approved, denied, and pending during the period from January 1, 

1985, through January 1, 2002, but were unable to query the time frame from 2002 

onward because of security issues related to an ongoing federal court case. Although 

we initially asked for and BLM provided data starting on January 1, 1985, we decided 

to use a 20-year time frame between January 1, 1986, and January 1, 2006, during the 

course of our work. In addition, BLM Lands and Realty staff told us that some of the 

LR2000 cases coded as “Indian allotment” might not fit our criteria because the 

category is used for other types of transactions, such as Indian fee patents. 

Therefore, to confirm the status of these cases and identify any others, including 

those between 2002 and 2006, we forwarded the LR2000 list to each of the 12 BLM 

state offices—Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Eastern States, Idaho, Montana, 

Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming—to have them identify Indian 

allotment cases. We then followed up with staff in each state office either via e-mail 

or telephone to confirm information provided. In one instance, we visited the 

Eastern States Office in Springfield, Virginia, and interviewed staff and reviewed 

cases identified in LR2000 under jurisdiction of this office. 

We found many instances in which the cases listed in LR2000 were not the original 

Indian allotments that we were trying to identify, but rather subsequent transactions 

on an original allotment. In the case of Eastern States, LR2000 listed 16 allotment 

cases but we identified only 2 that fit our criteria during our visit, and those fell 

outside of our established time frame. The remaining 14 cases were applications to 

change the status of Indian allotments issued a number of years ago, for example 

from trust to fee status. In other cases, BLM state offices were unable to determine 

the status of cases because the cases were old and no longer located on site, and the 

BLM staff had no access to LR2000 to make determinations on the cases. To obtain 

26U.S. Department of the Interior, BLM’s Lands and Realty Group, Background Information and 

Rational for Suspending the Filing of Indian Allotments and Removal of Applicable Regulation

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 17, 2004). 
Page 12 GAO-07-23R BLM Indian Allotments

cases from off-site storage facilities would have taken several weeks. Of the 94 

possible applications identified by LR2000, we were able to positively confirm that 11 

were applications for initial Indian allotments within the scope of our review, 2 were 

applications for Indian allotments outside the scope of our review, and 22 were 

modifications to existing allotments and therefore outside the scope of our review. 

We could not readily confirm the remaining 59 applications because of difficulty in 

locating and retrieving files. 

We also reviewed 31 Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) decisions concerning 

Indian allotment applications that we were able to identify, 28 of which involved a 

BLM decision prior to January 1, 1986. The three decisions within our review period 

involved 11 applications; Jane Delorme, 158 IBLA 260 (2003), affirmed BLM’s 

November 30, 2001, decision to deny 8 applications in Montana, Lehman 

Perkaquanard, 136 IBLA 182 (1996), affirmed BLM’s February 2, 1993, decision to 

deny 2 applications in New Mexico, and Ramona L. Randa, 125 IBLA 153 (1993), 

affirmed BLM’s April 16, 1992, decision to deny 1 application in California. Based on 

the deficiencies in the LR2000 data and difficulties in obtaining case files, we decided 

to report only on the 22 cases (11 from the LR2000 query and 11 related to IBLA 

decisions) that we were able to confirm as Indian allotments within our time frame. 

Finally, we reviewed Public Land Statistics data from 1962 through 2004 to identify 

any Indian allotments issued. However, since it was unclear how Indian allotments 

were categorized in these reports, we were not able to use this information. 

We conducted our work from July through September 2006 according to generally 

acceptable government auditing standards. 
Page 13 GAO-07-23R BLM Indian Allotments

Enclosure II 

Data on Newly Recognized and Restored Tribes 

In July 2006, we reported on the Bureau of Indian Affair’s (BIA) process for placing 

land in trust for tribes and individual Indians.27 BIA’s general authority to take land in 

trust for tribes and individual Indians dates back to the Indian Reorganization Act in 

1934.28 Two groups of tribes of particular interest that have availed themselves of 

BIA’s land in trust process are newly recognized and restored tribes. In November 

2001, we reported on BIA’s process for recognizing new tribes.29 At that time, we 

identified 47 newly recognized tribes and 37 restored tribes, for a total of 84 newly 

recognized and restored tribes. While our November 2001 report contained detailed 

information on the 47 newly recognized tribes in a table on pages 25 to 26, it did not 

contain similar information on the 37 restored tribes. Table 1 provides detailed 

information on the 37 restored tribes. Twenty-three of the tribes were restored by 

federal court decisions and the remaining 14 were restored by congressional action. 

Table 1: Thirty-seven Tribes Have Been Restored through Congressional Acts and Federal Court 

Decisions 

Tribe Date terminated Date restored How the tribe was restored 

Menominee Indian Tribe of 

Wisconsin 

Apr. 30, 1961 Dec. 22, 1973 Congressional restoration, 

Pub. L. No. 93-197, 87 Stat. 770 (1973) 

Robinson Rancheria of Pomo 

Indians of California 

Sept. 3, 1965 June 29, 1977 Federal court restoration, Duncan v. Andrus, 

517 F. Supp. 1 (N.D. Cal.1977)a

Confederated Tribes of the Siletz 

Reservation, Oregon 

Aug. 13, 1956 Nov. 18, 1977 Congressional restoration, 

Pub. L. No. 95-195, 91 Stat. 1415 (1977) 

Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma Aug. 3, 1959 May 15, 1978 Congressional restoration, 

Pub. L. No. 95-281, 92 Stat. 246 (1978) 

Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Aug. 2, 1959 May 15, 1978 Congressional restoration, 

Pub. L. No. 95-281, 92 Stat. 246 (1978) 

Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Mar. 1, 1957 Apr. 3, 1980 Congressional restoration, 

Pub. L. No. 96-227, 94 Stat. 317 (1980) 

Wiyot Tribe, California Apr. 11, 1961 Sept. 21, 1981 Federal court restoration, Table Bluff Band 

of Indians v. Andrus, 532 F. Supp. 255 (N.D. 

Cal. 1981) 

Confederated Tribes of the Grand 

Ronde Community of Oregon 

Aug. 13, 1956 Nov. 22, 1983 Congressional restoration, 

Pub. L. No. 98-165, 97 Stat. 1064 (1983) 

Bear River Band of the Rohnerville 

Rancheria, California 

July 16, 1966 Dec. 22, 1983 Federal court restoration, Tillie Hardwick v. 

United States, No. 79-1710 SW (N.D. Cal. 

1983) b

Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians of 

the Big Valley Rancheria, California 

Nov. 11, 1965 Dec. 22, 1983 Federal court restoration, Tillie Hardwick b

Blue Lake Rancheria, California Sept. 22, 1966 Dec. 22, 1983 Federal court restoration, Tillie Hardwick b

Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk 

Indians of California 

Apr. 11, 1961 Dec. 22, 1983 Federal court restoration, Tillie Hardwick b

 

27GAO, Indian Issues: BIA’s Efforts to Impose Time Frames and Collect Better Data Should Improve 

the Processing of Land in Trust Applications, GAO-06-781 (Washington, D.C.: July 28, 2006). 

28Act of June 18, 1934, ch. 576, § 5, 48 Stat. 984, 985 (1934). 

29GAO, Indian Issues: Improvements Needed in Tribal Recognition Process, GAO-02-49 (Washington, 

D.C.: Nov. 2, 2001). 
Page 14 GAO-07-23R BLM Indian Allotments

Tribe Date terminated Date restored How the tribe was restored 

Chicken Ranch Rancheria of MeWuk Indians of California Aug. 1, 1961 Dec. 22, 1983 Federal court restoration, Tillie Hardwick b

Cloverdale Rancheria of Pomo 

Indians of California 

Dec. 30, 1965 Dec. 22, 1983 Federal court restoration, Tillie Hardwick b

Elk Valley Rancheria, California July 16, 1966 Dec. 22, 1983 Federal court restoration, Tillie Hardwick b

Greenville Rancheria of Maidu 

Indians of California 

Dec. 8, 1966 Dec. 22, 1983 Federal court restoration, Tillie Hardwick b

Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu 

Indians of California 

Aug. 1, 1961 Dec. 22, 1983 Federal court restoration, Tillie Hardwick b

Northfork Rancheria of Mono Indians 

of California 

Feb. 18, 1966 Dec. 22, 1983 Federal court restoration, Tillie Hardwick b

Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi 

Indians of California 

Feb. 18, 1966 Dec. 22, 1983 Federal court restoration, Tillie Hardwick b

Pinoleville Rancheria of Pomo 

Indians of California 

Feb. 18, 1966 Dec. 22, 1983 Federal court restoration, Tillie Hardwick b

Potter Valley Tribe, California Aug. 1, 1961 Dec. 22, 1983 Federal court restoration, Tillie Hardwick b

Quartz Valley Indian Community of 

the Quartz Valley Reservation of 

California 

Jan. 20, 1967 Dec. 22, 1983 Federal court restoration, Tillie Hardwick b

Redding Rancheria, California June 20, 1962 Dec. 22, 1983 Federal court restoration, Tillie Hardwick b

Redwood Valley Rancheria of Pomo 

Indians of California 

Aug. 1, 1961 Dec. 22, 1983 Federal court restoration, Tillie Hardwick b

Smith River Rancheria, California July 29, 1967 Dec. 22, 1983 Federal court restoration, Tillie Hardwick b

Confederated Tribes of the Coos, 

Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians 

of Oregon 

Aug. 13, 1956 Oct. 17, 1984 Congressional restoration, 

Pub. L. No. 98-481, 98 Stat. 2250 (1984) 

Klamath Tribes, Oregon Aug. 13, 1961 Aug. 27, 1986 Congressional restoration, 

Pub. L. No. 99-398, 100 Stat. 849 (1986) 

Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas July 1, 1955 Aug. 18, 1987 Congressional restoration, 

Pub. L. No. 100-89, 101 Stat. 666 (1987) 

Ponca Tribe of Nebraska Oct. 27, 1966 Oct. 31, 1990 Congressional restoration, 

Pub. L. No. 101-484, 104 Stat. 1167 (1990) 

Guidiville Rancheria of California Sept. 3, 1965 Sept. 6, 1991 Federal court restoration, Scotts Valley 

Band of the Sugar Bowl Rancheria v. United 

States, No. C-86-3660-WWS (N.D. Cal. 

1991)c

Lytton Rancheria of California Aug. 1, 1961 Sept. 6, 1991 Federal court restoration, Scotts Valley c

Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians 

of California 

Sept. 3, 1965 Sept. 6, 1991 Federal court restoration, Scotts Valley c

Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico 

Rancheria, California 

June 2, 1967 Apr. 17, 1992 Federal court restoration, Scotts Valley d

Catawba Indian Nation July 2, 1960 Oct. 27, 1993 Congressional restoration, 

Pub. L. No. 103-116, 107 Stat. 1118 (1993) 

United Auburn Indian Community of 

the Auburn Rancheria of California 

Aug. 18, 1967 Oct. 31, 1994 Congressional restoration, 

Pub. L. No. 103-434, 108 Stat. 4533 (1994) 

Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians 

of California 

Apr. 11, 1961 Nov. 2, 1994 Congressional restoration, 

Pub. L. No. 103-454, 108 Stat. 4793 (1994) 

Federated Indians of Graton 

Rancheria, California 

Feb. 18, 1966 Dec. 27, 2000 Congressional restoration, 

Pub. L. No. 106-568, 114 Stat. 2939 (2000) 

Source: GAO analysis of relevant laws and federal court cases restoring tribes. 

Note: BIA did not complete the termination process for some tribes. For example, 25 C.F.R. pt. 242 (1959) 

(rescinded effective May 13, 1981, see 46 Fed. Reg. 26476), the implementing regulations for the California 

Rancheria Termination Act (Pub. L. No. 85-671, 72 Stat. 619 (1958), as amended by Pub. L. No. 88-419, 78 

Stat. 390 (1964)), provided a number of steps to be completed for the termination of a California Indian entity. 

Pursuant to 25 C.F.R. § 242.12, the termination process was to culminate with the publication of a proclamation 

in the Federal Register declaring that the special relationship between the federal government and tribe was 

terminated. Since no such proclamation was ever issued for tribes such as the Hopland Band of Pomo Indians 

of the Hopland Rancheria, California and the Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake, California, among others, those 

tribes were never officially terminated and are not included in this table. In a similar case, BIA never published a 

notice in the Federal Register terminating the Wyandotte Nation, Oklahoma, as required by their termination act 
Page 15 GAO-07-23R BLM Indian Allotments

(see Pub. L. No. 84-887, 70 Stat. 893, § 13(a) (1956)). There is, however, some ambiguity over how to classify 

these tribes and for various reasons BIA identifies them as restored tribes. In addition, there are other tribes that 

were terminated that have not been restored as of the date of this report. Those terminated and non-restored 

tribes are not included in the table. 

a

42 Fed. Reg. 33099 (June 29, 1977). 

b

49 Fed. Reg. 24084 (June 11, 1984). 

c

57 Fed. Reg. 5214 (Feb. 12, 1992). 

d

57 Fed. Reg. 19133 (May 4, 1992). 

While no additional tribes have been restored since our November 2001 report, there 

have been changes to the list of newly recognized tribes. The recognition of the 

Delaware Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma was overturned in court, and the tribe has 

been removed from BIA’s official list of federally recognized tribes.30 In addition, BIA 

added the Cowlitz Indian Tribe in the state of Washington as a newly recognized tribe 

as of January 4, 2002.31 By deleting one tribe and adding another, the total number of 

newly recognized tribes since 1960 remains at 47. 

To supplement our July 2006 land in trust report, table 2 provides information on the 

more than 600,000 acres of individual and tribal trust land that the 84 newly 

recognized and restored tribes or their members have acquired since being 

recognized or restored. 

Table 2: Individual and Tribal Trust Acreage for the 84 Newly Recognized and Restored Tribes 

Tribe 

Newly recognized 

or restored 

Date recognized 

or restored 

Tribal 

trust acres 

Individual 

trust acres 

Total 

trust acres 

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida Newly recognized Nov. 17, 1961 79,831.44 0.00 79,831.44 

Burns Paiute Tribe of the Burns Paiute 

Indian Colony of Oregon 

Newly recognized Nov. 16, 1967 942.60 10,534.00 11,476.60 

Nooksack Indian Tribe of Washington Newly recognized Aug. 13, 1971 212.68 0.00 212.68 

Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe of Washington Newly recognized June 9, 1972 23.21 0.00 23.21 

Upper Skagit Indian Tribe of Washington Newly recognized June 9, 1972 74.17 0.00 74.17 

Passamaquoddy Tribe of Maine Newly recognized June 29, 1972 133,677.00 0.00 133,677.00 

Penobscot Tribe of Maine Newly recognized July 14, 1972 65,608.38 0.00 65,608.38 

Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians 

of Michigan 

Newly recognized Sept. 7, 1972 1,707.63 0.00 1,707.63 

Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona Newly recognized Oct. 6, 1972 85.00 0.00 85.00 

Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana Newly recognized June 27, 1973 684.00 0.00 684.00 

Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin Restored Dec. 22, 1973 235,077.64 0.00 235,077.64 

Stillaguamish Tribe of Washington Newly recognized Oct. 27, 1976 24.30 0.00 24.30 

Robinson Rancheria of Pomo Indians of 

California 

Restored June 29, 1977 143.28 9.94 153.22 

Confederated Tribes of the Siletz 

Reservation, Oregon 

Restored Nov. 18, 1977 4,107.90 142.78 4,250.68 

Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma Restored May 15, 1978 26.63 0.00 26.63 

Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Restored May 15, 1978 882.34 0.63 882.97 

 

30See Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma v. Norton, 389 F.3d 1074 (10th Cir. 2004), cert. denied 126 S. Ct. 333 

(2005). Also, see the most recent list of federally recognized tribes at 70 Fed. Reg. 71194 (Nov. 25, 

2005). 

3167 Fed. Reg. 607 (Jan. 4, 2002). 
Page 16 GAO-07-23R BLM Indian Allotments

Tribe 

Newly recognized 

or restored 

Date recognized 

or restored 

Tribal 

trust acres 

Individual 

trust acres 

Total 

trust acres 

Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma Newly recognized May 15, 1978 230.41 0.00 230.41 

Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona Newly recognized Sept. 18, 1978 1,395.24 0.00 1,395.24 

Karuk Tribe of California Newly recognized Jan. 15, 1979 596.07 246.16 842.23 

Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Restored Apr. 3, 1980 43,576.99 0.00 43,576.99 

Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and 

Chippewa Indians, Michigan 

Newly recognized May 27, 1980 562.49 0.00 562.49 

Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians of Maine Newly recognized Oct. 10, 1980 850.00 0.00 850.00 

Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe of Washington Newly recognized Feb. 10, 1981 72.50 0.00 72.50 

Jamul Indian Village of California Newly recognized July 7, 1981 6.03 0.00 6.03 

Wiyot Tribe, California Restored Sept. 21, 1981 87.99 0.00 87.99 

Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe of Louisiana Newly recognized Sept. 25, 1981 725.61 0.00 725.61 

Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians of 

Oregon 

Newly recognizedaDec. 29, 1982 1,497.75 0.00 1,497.75 

Death Valley Timbi-Sha Shoshone Band of 

California 

Newly recognized Jan. 3, 1983 7,753.99 0.00 7,753.99 

Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas Newly recognized Jan. 8, 1983 3,715.47 3,376.26 7,091.73 

Narragansett Indian Tribe of Rhode Island Newly recognized Apr. 11, 1983 1,943.50 0.00 1,943.50 

Mashantucket Pequot Tribe of Connecticut Newly recognized Oct. 18, 1983 1,545.20 0.00 1,545.20 

Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde 

Community of Oregon 

Restored Nov. 22, 1983 10,658.36 20.00 10,678.36 

Bear River Band of the Rohnerville 

Rancheria, California 

Restored Dec. 22, 1983 60.00 2.16 62.16 

Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians of the Big 

Valley Rancheria, California 

Restored Dec. 22, 1983 84.73 14.79 99.52 

Blue Lake Rancheria, California Restored Dec. 22, 1983 10.00 9.40 19.40 

Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians 

of California 

Restored Dec. 22, 1983 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk 

Indians of California 

Restored Dec. 22, 1983 50.58 0.00 50.58 

Cloverdale Rancheria of Pomo Indians of 

California 

Restored Dec. 22, 1983 0.00 12.56 12.56 

Elk Valley Rancheria, California Restored Dec. 22, 1983 193.72 21.72 215.44 

Greenville Rancheria of Maidu Indians of 

California 

Restored Dec. 22, 1983 0.00 1.80 1.80 

Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu Indians of 

California 

Restored Dec. 22, 1983 425.62 19.69 445.31 

Northfork Rancheria of Mono Indians of 

California 

Restored Dec. 22, 1983 61.52 80.00 141.52 

Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians 

of California 

Restored Dec. 22, 1983 0.00 28.76 28.76 

Pinoleville Rancheria of Pomo Indians of 

California 

Restored Dec. 22, 1983 2.84 23.53 26.37 

Potter Valley Tribe, California Restored Dec. 22, 1983 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Quartz Valley Indian Community of the 

Quartz Valley Reservation of California 

Restored Dec. 22, 1983 105.62 24.02 129.64 

Redding Rancheria, California Restored Dec. 22, 1983 3.33 47.00 50.33 

Redwood Valley Rancheria of Pomo Indians 

of California 

Restored Dec. 22, 1983 159.61 16.91 176.52 

Smith River Rancheria, California Restored Dec. 22, 1983 41.62 47.87 89.49 

Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama Newly recognized Aug. 10, 1984 386.92 0.00 386.92 

Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower 

Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians of Oregon 

Restored Oct. 17, 1984 130.50 0.00 130.50 

Klamath Tribes, Oregon Restored Aug. 27, 1986 556.24 720.18 1,276.42 

Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) 

of Massachusetts 

Newly recognized Apr. 11, 1987 466.70 0.00 466.70 

Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas Restored Aug. 18, 1987 5,197.46 0.00 5,197.46 

Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo of Texas Newly recognizedaAug. 18, 1987 3,227.34 0.00 3,227.34 

Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior 

Chippewa Indians, Michigan 

Newly recognized Sept. 8, 1988 303.08 0.00 303.08 
Page 17 GAO-07-23R BLM Indian Allotments

Tribe 

Newly recognized 

or restored 

Date recognized 

or restored 

Tribal 

trust acres 

Individual 

trust acres 

Total 

trust acres 

Coquille Tribe of Oregon Newly recognizedaJune 28, 1989 6,481.95 0.00 6,481.95 

San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe of Arizona Newly recognized Mar. 28, 1990 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Ponca Tribe of Nebraska Restored Oct. 31, 1990 158.84 83.00 241.84 

Guidiville Rancheria of California Restored Sept. 6, 1991 44.63 2.25 46.88 

Lytton Rancheria of California Restored Sept. 6, 1991 9.53 0.00 9.53 

Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians of 

California 

Restored Sept. 6, 1991 0.00 0.79 0.79 

Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians of Maine Newly recognized Nov. 26, 1991 314.38 0.00 314.38 

Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico 

Rancheria, California 

Restored Apr. 17, 1992 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Catawba Indian Nation Restored Oct. 27, 1993 1,010.00 0.00 1,010.00 

Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California Newly recognized Mar. 22, 1994 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Mohegan Indian Tribe of Connecticut Newly recognized May 14, 1994 406.00 0.00 406.00 

Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, 

Michigan 

Newly recognized Sept. 21, 1994 534.95 0.00 534.95 

Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa 

Indians, Michigan 

Newly recognized Sept. 21, 1994 424.16 0.00 424.16 

Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, 

Michigan and Indiana 

Newly recognized Sept. 21, 1994 0.00 0.00 0.00 

United Auburn Indian Community of the 

Auburn Rancheria of California 

Restored Oct. 31, 1994 49.21 0.00 49.21 

Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians of 

California 

Restored Nov. 2, 1994 1,869.16 0.00 1,869.16 

Central Council of the Tlingit & Haida Indian 

Tribes 

Newly recognized Nov. 2, 1994 31.59 0.00 31.59 

Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, Louisiana Newly recognized Aug. 29, 1995 62.63 0.00 62.63 

Huron Potawatomi, Inc., Michigan Newly recognized Mar. 17, 1996 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Samish Indian Tribe, Washington Newly recognized Apr. 26, 1996 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of 

Potawatomi Indians of Michigan 

Newly recognized Aug. 23, 1999 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Snoqualmie Tribe, Washington Newly recognized Oct. 6, 1999 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, 

California 

Restored Dec. 27, 2000 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Shawnee Tribe, Oklahoma Newly recognized Dec. 27, 2000 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Lower Lake Rancheria, California Newly recognized Dec. 29, 2000 0.00 0.00 0.00 

King Salmon Tribe Newly recognized Dec. 29, 2000 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Sun'aq Tribe of Kodiak Newly recognized Dec. 29, 2000 0.00 0.23 0.23 

Cowlitz Indian Tribe, Washington Newly recognized Jan. 4, 2002 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Total 621,190.26 15,486.43 636,676.69 

Source: GAO analysis of BIA’s fiscal year 2005 annual acreage reports. 

Note: BIA’s land in trust database provides agencywide data on the processing of land in trust applications. Our 

July 2006 report identified problems with this database. However, BIA realty staff noted that, according to the 

database, three landless tribes—the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Huron Potawatomi, Inc., Michigan, and 

the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana—had land in trust applications pending and two 

additional landless tribes—the Stillaguamish Tribe of Washington and the Samish Indian Tribe, Washington—

had land in trust applications approved as of August 17, 2006. 

 

a

Some ambiguity exists over whether to classify this tribe as newly recognized or restored and for various 

reasons BIA classifies it as restored. 

Also, as noted in our November 2001 tribal recognition report and our July 2006 land 

in trust report,32 BIA’s tribal recognition and land in trust processes have come under 

greater scrutiny with the growth of Indian gaming. Table 3 shows the number of 

 

32GAO-02-49 and GAO-06-781. 
Page 18 GAO-07-23R BLM Indian Allotments

tribes recognized or restored prior to and after enactment of the Indian Gaming 

Regulatory Act on October 17, 1988. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act provides the 

statutory basis for the operation and regulation of certain gaming activities on Indian 

lands. It generally prohibits gaming activities on Indian lands acquired by the 

Secretary of the Interior after October 17, 1988, the date the act was signed into law. 

However, the act does provide several exceptions that allow gaming on lands 

acquired in trust after its enactment.33

Table 3: Number of Tribes Recognized or Restored before and after Enactment of the Indian Gaming 

Regulatory Act 

Newly recognized Restored Total 

Number of tribes recognized or restored 

from January 1, 1960 to enactment of the 

Indian Gaming Regulatory Act on October 

17, 1988 (almost 29 years) 

28 28 56 

Number of tribes recognized or restored 

since the enactment of the Indian Gaming 

Regulatory Act to July 30, 2006 (almost 18 

years) 

19 9 28 

Total 47 37 84 

Source: GAO analysis of newly recognized and restored tribes. 

Finally, another group of tribes cited in discussions regarding BIA’s land in trust 

process is the “landless” tribes. In this context, we will define a landless tribe as a 

federally recognized tribe located in the continental United States for which, 

according to BIA, the federal government does not hold title to any land in trust on 

behalf of the tribe.34 Table 4 provides a list of the landless tribes. According to BIA’s 

fiscal year 2005 annual acreage reports, the federal government holds title to land in 

trust for individual tribal members of 7 of 21 landless tribes, but none for the tribe 

itself. The remaining 14 landless tribes have no tribal trust land, and their individual 

members do not have any individual trust land. All but 3 of the 21 tribes in table 4 are 

newly recognized or restored tribes. 

 

33GAO, Indian Gaming Regulatory Act: Land Acquired for Gaming After the Act’s Passage, 

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

34BIA generally does not hold land in trust for federally recognized Alaska Native tribal entities in 

Alaska. Under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, Pub. L. No. 92-203, 85 Stat. 688 (1971), Alaska 

Native tribal landholdings were vested with the Alaska Native corporations established under the act, 

except for the Metlakatla Indian Community, Annette Island Reserve. The term “landless” tribe in 

Alaska generally refers to Alaska Native entities excluded from the Alaska Native Claims Settlement 

Act. For example, H.R. 2559 and S. 1306 (109th Cong., 1st Sess.) would amend the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act to include the Alaska communities of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, and 

Wrangell. 
Page 19 GAO-07-23R BLM Indian Allotments

Table 4: Tribes with No Tribal Trust Acreage in the Continental United States in Fiscal Year 2005 

Tribe 

Newly recognized 

or restored 

Year newly 

recognized 

or restored 

No tribal trust land, but some individual trust land 

 California Valley Miwok Tribe, California a a

 Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake, California a a

 Winnemucca Indian Colony of Nevada a a

 Cloverdale Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California restored 1983 

 Greenville Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California restored 1983 

 Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California restored 1983 

 Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians of California restored 1991 

No tribal or individual trust land 

 Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California restored 1983 

 Potter Valley Tribe, California restored 1983 

 San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe of Arizona newly recognized 1990 

 Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria, California restored 1992 

 Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana newly recognized 1994 

 Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California newly recognized 1994 

 Huron Potawatomi, Inc., Michigan newly recognized 1996 

 Samish Indian Tribe, Washington newly recognized 1996 

 Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Potawatomi Indians, 

 Michigan and Indiana 

newly recognized 1999 

 Snoqualamie Tribe, Washington newly recognized 1999 

 Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, California restored 2000 

 Lower Lake Rancheria, California newly recognized 2000 

Shawnee Tribe, Oklahoma newly recognized 2000 

 Cowlitz Indian Tribe, Washington newly recognized 2002 

Source: GAO analysis of BIA’s fiscal year 2005 annual acreage reports. 

a

Tribe was recognized prior to 1960 and was never terminated. 
Page 20 GAO-07-23R BLM Indian Allotments

Enclosure III 

Comments from the Department of the Interior 
Page 21 GAO-07-23R BLM Indian Allotments

Enclosure IV 

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact 

Robin M. Nazzaro, (202) 512-3841, nazzaror@gao.gov 

Staff Acknowledgments 

In addition to the individual named above, Jeffery D. Malcolm, Assistant Director; 

Mark Keenan; and Carol Herrnstadt Shulman made key contributions to this report. 

Also contributing to the report were Jean Cook, Bart Fischer, Carol Kolarik, Greg 

Marchand, and Greg Wilmoth. 

(360747) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

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

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

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

reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER