April 9,201 2 

By First Class Mail 

RusseIl Attebery. Chairman 

Kanrk Tribe of California 

64236 Second Avenue 

Post Ofice Box 1 0 1 6 

Happy Camp, CA 96039 

Re: Approval of Karuk Tribe of California ordinance amendment 

Dear Chairman Attebery: 

This letter responds to your request for the National Indian Gaming Commission to 

review and approve an amendment to the Kamk Tribe of California (Tribe) tribal gaming 

ordinance. Tlle Second Amendment to the Karuk Tribal Gaming Ordinance was approved by 

Resolution No. 1 1-R-1 2 I on October 14,201 1. 

The amendment autlmrizes gaming on four parcels of land totally 200.2 acres known as 

the "Yreka Property" acquired by the Tribe on April 28. 1997 and accepted into trust on March 

27,200 1. This amendment required the NIGC to conduct a legal analysis of the applicability of 

IGRA's restored lands for a restored tribe provision. 25 U.S.C. $ 27 19(b)( 1 )(I3 )(iii). in order to 

determine whether the Tribe is allowed to conduct gaming activities on the site. 

The NTGC's Ofice of General Counsel (OGC) has provided me wit11 a legal opinion, 

dated April 3.20 12, modifying an OGC legal advisory opinion. dated October 12,2004. The 

April 3 legal opinion concludes that the Tribe was restored to Federal Recognition and that the 

Yreka Property qualifies as restored land. The Department of the Interior Solicitor reviewed the 

opinion and concurs in the legal analysis and concfusion. The record supports the opinion, and I 

adopt the analysis and concIusion provided herein. Therefore, the tribal gaming ordinance 

amendment is hereby approved. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Senior Attorney John May at (202) 

632-7003. 

Sincerely. 

Tracie L. Stevens 

Chairwoman 

MATIOMAI. 1-IEADQUARTERS -441 L Sl NnI, iu tc 91l?l \\bi.hivzt3rl. DC 20011.5 Tr?l. 20; 672 ;'og? Fax: 707.637 7066 M'WW.NIGC.GOV 

REGIONAL OFFICES F!jrtl;irid. DR. Sdcra~t.~l~., CIA, ?i?ocn~x. A7: St Fa:-1. MN. Tul5a Ok 
Memorandum 

To: Tracie Stevens. Chairwoman 

Through: Jo-Ann M. Shyloski, Associate General Counsel TL~ & 

I/ 

From: Jolm R. Hay, Senior Attorney 

Date: April 3,201 2 

Re: Modification of 2004 Legal Opinion, Karuk Tribe of California; Yreka 

Trust Property 

On January 11.2012, the Karuk Tribe of CaIifornia (Tribe) submitted an 

amendment to the Tribe's gaming ordinance for approval by the Chairwoman.' The 

amendment authorizes gaming on a parcel of trzlst land (the Yreka Trust Property) that 

was the subject of a negative lands opinion issued by the National Indian Gaming 

Commission (NIGC) Office of General Counsel (OGC), with the concurrence of the 

Solicitor's Ofice, in October 2004 (the 2004 Opinion). Along with the amendment 

submitted an January 1 1,201 2, the Tribe resubmitted historical information provided to 

NIGC on December 3,2007. That historical information was not available to the NlGC 

at the time of the 2004 opinion. 

This memorandum concludes a legal review of whether the Yreka Tmst Property 

is Indian lands eligible for gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) 

based on information provided by the Tribe prior to 2008. As explained below, it is our 

opinion that the Yreka Property is restored lands and eligible for gaming under IGRA. 

Accordingly, this opinion modifies the 2004 Opinion. The Department of the Interior 

("Interior"), Office of the Solicitor, concurs with this opinion. 

I. Background 

On June 1 2,2003, the Tribe requested that the OGC issue an Indian lands opinion 

on whether the Yreka Tmst Property is eligible for gaming under the Indian Gaming 

Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. 5 2719. The Tribe submitted both a discussion of the 

restored lands exception under section 2719 and materials in support of the Tribe's claim 

that the exception applied. On February 5,2004, the Tribe submitted suppIementa1 

information at the request of OGC. Upon evaluation of the submitted materials, on 

October 12,2004, the OGC opined that the materials submitted did not demonstrate that 

Karuk was a "restored" tribe wit11 a sufficient "temporal relationship" and "lzistorical 

nexus" to the Yreka Trust Property to qualify for the restored lands exception. 

I On Febmry 1 1,201 1, the Tribe submitted an amendment to the Tribe's gaming ordinance for approval 

by the Chainvoman. The amendment to the ordinance was subsequently wthdra~vn, revised and 

resubmitted on May 5,20 1 1. The revised amendment was withdrawn and resubmitted on July 28, 20 1 1, 

October 18,201 1, and January 11,2012. 
The 2004 Opinion qualified that based upon the lack of infomation, the OGC 

could not conclude that Karuk was a restored trjbe and that the Yreka Trust Property 

constituted restored lands. For example, the 2004 Opinion explained that no infomatian 

was provided to demonstrate termination and that "without more, we are not prepared to 

find that the Tribe qualifies" as a restored tribe. Similarly, the 2004 Opinion explained 

that "the evidence provided by the Tribe that the parcel was once the location of 

aboriginal settlements is scant'' and that "the Tribe has not provided evidence that the 

parcel remained important to the tribe throughout history." 

The 2004 Opinion essentially provided a roadmap for the Tribe to submit 

additional information to demonstrate that it is a restored tribe and that the Yreka Trust 

Property is restored lands. Based on discussions with OGC staff, the Tribe subsequently 

provided additional information in December of 2007. The OGC did not complete its 

analysis of the 2007 information prior to Interior's publication of the Part 292 regulations 

in May 2008. 

With its proposed ordinance amendment, the Tribe relies on the 2004 Opinion and 

the information submitted in 2007. The Tribe maintains that the Yreka Trust Property 

qualifies as restored land for a tribe restored to federal recognition. The ordinance 

amendment describes the Yreka Trust Property as follows: 

This land consists of four parcels acquired by the Tribe on April 28, 1997, and 

accepted into trust on March 27,2001. The total acreage of these four parcels is 

200.2 acres and the prior owner of each is identified as 'Holm' -the four parcels 

contain, respectively, 20 acres, 60.2 acres, 100 acres and 20 acres, and they are 

located withn the 'Karuk Tribal Housing Authority Land' at Yreka, California. 

See Karuk Tribe Resolution 1 1 -R-121 (October 14,20 I 1). This description is consistent 

with the one s~ibrnitted by the Tribe in 2003. 

IT. Applicability of Part 292 Regulations 

In May 2008, Interior published regulations establishing criteria for the 

application of IGRA7s exceptions to the general prohibition against gaming on newly 

acquired trust lands, including the restored lands exception. 73 Fed. Reg. 29,354 (May 

20,2008) (codified at 25 C.F.R. Part 292) ("the Part 292 regulations"). The Part 292 

regulations became effective on August 25,2008. 73 Fed. Reg. 35,579 (June 24,2008). 

Section 292.26 uf the regulations expressly provides that the Part 292 regulations 

do not apply in certain circumstances. In the present matter, the Tribe argues that 5 

292.26(b) precludes the application of Part 292 to the Tribe's pending ordinance 

amendment because the NIGC issued a written opinion regarding the applicability of 25 

U.S.G. 4 2719 for this particular site before the effective date of the Part 292 re,gdations. 

That provision provides, in relevant part, as foIIows: 

[Tlhese regulations shall not apply to applicable agency actions when, before the 

effective date of these regulations, the Department or the National Indian Gaming 
Commission (NIGC) issued a written opinion regarding the applicability of 25 

U.S.C. 27 19 for land to be used for a particular gaming establishment, provided 

that the Department or the NIGC retains hlI discretion to qualify, withdraw or 

modify such opinions. 

25 C.F.R. 292.26(b). 

The preamble to the final ruIe explains that under 5 292.26(b),'the Federal 

Government may be able to follow through with its prior legal opinions and take final 

agency actions consistent with those opinions, even if these reslations now have created 

a conflict." The preamble further expIains that the "regulations will not affect the 

Department's ability to qualify, modify or withdraw its prior legal opinions." 73 Fed. 

Reg. at 29,372. 

We conclude that section 292.26(b) applies to the Tribe's pending ordinance 

amendment. NIGG hereby modifies its 2004 Opinion to consider the information 

provided by the Tribe in 2007 before the effective date of the Part 292 Regulations. The 

Tribe's 2007 information was provided at the request of NIGC in response to the 2004 

Opinion. The applicable agency action is your approval ofthe Tribe's amended gaming 

ordinance. The 2004 Opinion is a written opinion regarding the applicability of 25 

U.S.C. 5 2719 for Iand to be used for a particular gaming establishment. Further, under 

the regulation, NIGC retains f 11 discretion to modify the 2004 Opinion. As such, the 

Chairwoman can rely on a modification of the 2004 Opinion in taking a final agency 

action. Accordingly, we analyze the Tribe's 2007 information under the legal criteria set 

forth in the 2004 Opinion. 

111. The Karuk Tribe lost its government-to-government relationship 

As explained in the 2004 Opinion, the Tribe did not provide information to 

substantiate a claim that the United States terminated the relationship with the Tribe. In 

2007, the Tribe suppIied historical documentation concerning the administrative 

termination of the Tribe's government-to-government relationship. The information 

submitted in 2007 demonstrates that the Tribe was administratively terminated. 

Tn this case, Interior's records from the late 1970s and 1980s demonstrate that for 

a period between the late 1940s through the 1970s, the federal government did not 

recognize a government-to-government relationship with this ~ribe.%s discussed more 

" Part of the conhsion surrounding the Tribe's history may be caused by the various identifications used by 

the United States for the Tribe. In a 1978 review of the Karuk sibation, Interior noted: 

[Tlhe Karok Indians have been referred to as Karok. Klamath, Klamath River, Lawer Klamath and 

Upper Klamath Indians. We have even seen the Karok Indians referred to as the Karonk Band of 

Klamath River Indians. However, the Klamath River Indians, i.e., Yurok, Hoopa and Karok, are 

not a single entity since each belong to a different linguistic group. 

Memorandum to Deputy Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs from John V. Meyers, Tribal Relations 

Specialist and Mitchell L. Bush, Tribal Enrollment Specialist, subject: Status Brief - Karok Tribe of 
filly below, the record demonstrates that the Tribe's government-to-government 

relationship was administratively terminated during this period. 

As set forth in the 2004 Opinion, the Karuk Tribe clearly was a federally 

recognized tribe as evidenced by a treaty with the United States in 1852 and subsequent 

govemment-to-government interactions. As late as 1944, the federal govement still 

recognized the Kamk Tribe of California. In that year, the Hoopa Valley Agency of the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs ("BIA") included the Tribe in its Ten Year Program Rqort 

wherein it acknowledged service responsibility for the Tribe. It further acknowledged 

responsibility for Karuk allottees and referenced appeals for funds to be appropriated to 

acquire Iand for the Tribe. Meyers-Bush Memo at 3. However, as confirmed through 

Interior docurnei~ts fiom the 1970s and 1980s, for the thee decades spanning the late 

1940s through January 15, 1979, Interior effectively did not recognize a government-togovernment relationship with the Tribe. 

Interior documents explain that during this time period, the BIA denied services 

to Karuk based on a determination that they were not federally recognized and therefore 

not eligible for services. Meyers-Bush Memo at 1 ; Letter fiom Superintendent Weller to 

Commissioner of Indian Affairs (Dec. 20, 1978) (recommending extension of "full 

Federal recognition."). The Meyers-Bush Memo explains that beginning in the 

termination era of federal Indian policy, the BTA stopped providing services to many 

tribes, including the Karuk Tribe. Meyers-Bush Memo at 3-4. 

In the early 1970s, the Kanxk Tribe approached the BIA in an attempt to organize 

under the Indian Reorganization Act ("IRA"), 25 U.S.C. 5 476. Letter from John W. 

Fritz, Deputy Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs (Operations}, to Dart Swaney, 

Superintendent, Northern California Agency (July 30, 1984) ("Fritz Letter"). The BIA 

informed the Tribe that it was "not a FederalIy recognized Indian entity" and could not 

organize under the IRA. It could, however: 

organize as a corporation or nonqrofit association under California State law. 

The group was further advised that although the Bureau would recognize the 

organization for the purposes for wlzich it organized i.e., to promote cultural, 

social, education and economic weII-being of its members, such recognition 

would not constitute official Federal recognition of an Indian tribe. The Orleans 

group incorporated as a non-profit organization on March 24, 197 1 .3 

Id. 

California (Apr. 21, 1978) ("Meyers-Bush Memo"). Today, the Tribe is horn as the Knruk Tribe of 

California. The Tribe is comprised of three communities located in Orleans, Happy Camp, and Yreka, 

California. Id. 

The "Orleans group'hmentioned in the Fritz Letter as incorporating under state law was one of the three 

community groups of the Tribe. The entity that sought to organize under the IRA and was rejected by the 

BIA as unrecognized was the Klamath River Tnter-tribal Council, which was then the governmental body of 

the Tribe as a whole. 
In 1973, the BIA informed the Office of the Vice President of the United States 

that the "Orleans Karok Tribal Council of California is not a federally recognized tribe. 

The group has no land base and is merely a group of scattered descendants living in an 

urban setting." Letter Erom Ted B. White, Chief, Division of Tribal Government 

Services, BIA, to Robert Robertson, Executive Director, National Council on Indian 

Opportunity, Office of the Vice President (Nov. 15, 1973). The letter added: "[tlhe 

Indians residing on the Hoopa Extension are federally recognized but have never 

organized." Id. 

In 1976, the Orleans Karuk Council delivered a constitution to the BIA pursuant 

to the Tribal Government Development Program contract. Fritz Letter at 1. At this point, 

it was determined that "since Orleans had no land base, it was not eligible to organize 

under the IRA even if the group had federal recognition." Id. The Fritz Letter goes on to 

state: "[tlhe Orleans group finally acquired some six acres of land which was 

subsequently taken into trust status by the Area Director for such Orleans Karoks of onehalf degree Indian blood as the Secretary might designate. Since the Orleans group was 

not Federally recognized, the only way the Bureau could deal with the Orleans group was 

to recognize it as a half-blood Indian community pursuant to Section 19 of the IRA." Id. 

In 1977, the Orleans group's application for a Public Law 93-638 grant was 

denied based on its lack of federal recognition. The result of this decision is detailed in 

the Fritz Letter: 

On November 18, 1977, Assistant Secretary Gerard advised the Sacramento Area 

Director that the Orleans Karok group was not a Federally recognized Indian 

entity but was recognized as a half-blood community only and therefore not 

eligible to participate in 638 grants and contracts. The Bureau advised the 

Orleans goup that it might want to petition for acknowledgment through the 

Federal Acknowledgment Project [sic]. In the alternative, those Orleans Karoks 

who possessed one-half or more degree Indian blood were eligible for certain 

Bureau services afforded individual Indians under Section 19 of the IRA. 

Fritz Letter at 1-2. Deputy Assistant Secretary Fritz explained that "[b]ecause of the 

confusion over the status of Orleans and subsequent overtures from Happy Camp and 

Siskiyou County Indian Association for Federal recognition, it was decided to make an 

in-depth review of Karok recognition." Fritz Letter at 2. 

In April of 1978, the BIA issued the Meyers-Bush Memo to assist the Assistant 

Secretary's determination of the Tribe's status. The impetus of the Meyers-Bus11 Memo 

was several individual petitions by the Kank sub-groups for recognition as separate 

entities and that "these petitions were a reaction to denials of Bureau services in that such 

denials were based on an internal Bureau determination that the various entities 

requesting services were not Federally recognized." Meyers-Bush Memo at I. Interior 

closely examined the historical record and concluded that its determination that federal 

services to the Tribe should have been denied because it was not federally recognized 

"was not entirely accurate." Meyers-Bush Memo at 1. The Memo noted that no action 
had been taken by the BIA towards the Tribe from 1944 until sometime after 1968 when 

Tribal members began receiving BIA health and education services. Id. at 3. In the Iate 

1960s, Karuk members "were re-established into the service population." Id. at 4. Nearly 

a decade later, Interior officials concluded that '?he Karok Tribe has had and continues to 

have a trust relationship with the Federal Government; the members of the tribe continue 

to have all rights and benefits accruing to members of a FederalIy recognized tribe, and 

that full services to the tribe slzould be reinstated immediately." Id. at 4. (emphasis 

added). 

On June 9, 1978, the Acting Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs responded to an 

inquiry on the status of the Orleans Karok Indians. Letter to LeRoy W. Wilder, 

Association on American Indian Affairs Lnc., from Rick Lavis, Acting Assistant 

Secretary - Indian Affairs. The letter noted that Orleans was not a federally recognized 

tribe, but part of the Karuk Tribe of California, which "had a Federal relationship wit11 

the United States that has never been terminated by Congress, Conclusions that the 

relationship had been terminated or never existed may have been based on an insufficient 

review of a very complex situation." Id. 

On June 15, 1978, the Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs explained that the 

Department had made a "recent determination that the Karok Tribe of California had a 

continuing relationship with the United States[.]" Memorandum to Sacramento Area 

Director from George Bandman, Acting Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs re: Orleans 

Karuk Council. The Memorandum explained that the Orleans Karok had submitted a 

constitution "prior to our determination that a Federal relationship did, in fact, exist 

between the United States Government and the Karok Tribe." Id. Underscoring that the 

Tribe had been administratively terminated, in October 25, 1978, the Director of the 

Office of Indian Services at the EIA, stated that "[olnce we may be assured that a 

continuing relationship with the tribe is legally proper, we are prepared to provide such 

assistance as may be necessary to formally organize the tribe." Letter to Duane A. Ward, 

Chaiman Siskiyou County Indian Association from Theodore C. Krenzke, Director 

Ofice of Indian Services (October 25, 1978). 

In December of 1978, the Superintendent of BIA's Hoopa Agency opined: 

It is the belief of this Agency that the Karok Tribe has always had a continuing 

trust relationship with the FederaI Government and that they should be extended 

full Federal recognition. We recommeild that the Karok Tribe be granted this 

privilege in order that they may avail themselves of all Federal services granted 

Tribes with Federal recognition. 

4~he Meyers-Bush Mema discounted any argument that the Tribe abandoned tribal relations, explaining: 

"We believe that due to tlie historjcal nature of the 'tribal governing system' and pressure from the Central 

Office to petition for recognition as separate entities, we have been instrumental in such abandonment if 

that argument is to be given weight." Meyers-Bush Memo at 4. 
Letter to Commissioner of Indian Affairs from Joe G. Weller, Superintendent, Hoopa 

Agency (Dec. 20,19781.~ 

On January 15, 1979, the Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs found that "the 

continued existence of the Karoks as a federally recognized tribe of Indians has been 

substantiated." Memorandum to Sacramento Area Director from Assistant Secretary - 

Indian Affairs, re: Revitalization of the Government-to-Government Relationship 

Between the Kamk Tribe of California and the Federal Government (Jan. IS, 1979). "In 

light of tlis finding, I am herby [sic] directing that the government-to-government 

relationship, with attendant Bureau services within available resources, be reestablished," Id, Accordingly, the Assistant Secretary directed that the Tribe be added to 

the BIA list of federaIIy recognized tribes. id6 

As a whole, the history of the Kmk Tribe of California indicates that 

commencing in the 1890's Interior recognized the Karuk Tribe and provided numerous 

services such as education, health care and social services to the Tribe. Interior 

administratively terminated its government-to-government relationship with the Tribe 

beginning in approximately 1944. TribaI members did not receive BIA services again 

until at least 1968. In 1971, Interior informed the Tribe it was not and could not be a 

federally recognized tribe, but could form a corporation or non-profit association. In 

1978, Interior undertook a comprehensive review of the Tribe's sifxation and concluded 

that its earlier internal determination that the Tribe and its members slaould not receive 

services because the Tribe or its sub-communities were not Federal recognized "was not 

entirely accurate." In 1979, Interior re-established a government-to-government 

relationship with the Tribe, and the Karuk Tribe was added to the list of federal1 y 

recognized tribes, 

IV. Restored tribe anaIysis of new information under NIGC 2004 analysis 

We conclude that the Tribe's new information demonstrates that the Tribe 

constitutes a restored tribe. Under IGRA and the case law developed prior to Interior's 

proinulgation of the Part 292 regulations, a tribe claiming to be restored was required to 

demonstrate a history of governmental recognition, a period of non-recognition, and tl~en 

reinstatement of recognition. See Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Ch@peu'a Jlndinns 

v. United Stafcs Attornqy. 369 F.3d 960,967 (fjt" Cir. 2004). 

- ' In September of 1978, Interior published regulations for acknowledging American Indian tribes. 43 Fed. 

Reg. 39361 (Sept. 5, 1978). Neither the Kmk Tribe nor its sub-entities petitioned for recognition. Receipt 

of Petition for Federal Ac~owledgment of Existence As Indian Tribes, 44 Fed. Reg. 116, 116 (Jan. 2, 

1979). 

%he BIA began publishing a list of federally recognized Indian tribes in 1979. The Karok Tribe of 

California appeared on this initial list. Notice, Indian Tribal Entities Recognized and Eligible To Receive 

Services From the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, 44 Fed. Reg. 7235, 7235 (Feb 6, 1979). 
In 2004, we determined that the Karuk Tribe was first recognized by the federal 

government during the negotiations for the never-ratified 1852 California Treaty R. We 

have long recognized these treaty negotiations as indicative of a federal relationship 

despite Congress's failure to ratify the treaty. The 2004 Opinion concluded, however, that 

"there does not seem to be any evidence that this relationship was cver administratively 

terminated[.]" 

The information supplied by the Tribe in 2007 demonstrates that it was 

administratively terminated. In 197 1, Interior informed the Tribe that it was not federally 

recognized and could not organize under the IRA because it was landless. See Letter fram 

John W. Fritz, Deputy Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs, to Dan Swaney, 

Superintendent, Northern California Agency (July 30, 1984). On November 18, 1977, 

Interior instructed the Orleans Karuk that it needed to go through the Federal 

Acknowledgment Process to become federally recoaized. Fritz Letter at 1-2. Shortly 

thereafter, Interior proceeded to conduct "an in depth review of Karok recognition." Id. 

at 2. Upon concluding that its prior determinations were "not entirely accurate," the 

Tribe's status was restored on January 15, 1979. After more than three decades of 

uncertainty and confusion, the Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs firmly and finally reestablished the government-to-government relationship and directed the Karuk Tribe of 

California be added to the list of federally recognized tribes. By February of 1979, the 

Tribe was included on the list of federally recognized tribes. 

Although Congress never formally tenninated the government-to-government 

relationship between the Karuk Tribe and the United States, the new information 

submitted by the Tribe supports the concIusion that Interior had administratively 

terminated its relationship with the Tribe, which thereafter was officially restored. 

Restored lands analysis 

In order to constitute restored lands eligible for gaming under IGRA, the Tribe 

must not only demonstrate that it is a restored tribe, it also must demonstrate that the 

proposed gaming site was "land taken into trust as part of. . . the restoration of lands for 

an Indian tribe" under 25 U.S.C. 5 271 9(b)(l)(B)(iii). The language of the statute docs 

not require that a "restoration of lands" be accomplished through congressional action or 

in the very same transaction that restored the tribe to Federal recognition. Lands may be 

restored to a tribe through the administrative fee-to-trust process under 25 C.F.R. Part 

1 5 1. Grand Traverse Band of Ottawla and Chippewa Indians v. United Sta tcs Atto~ney, 

198 F. Supp. 2d 920,935-36 (W.D. Mich. 2002), qfd, 369 F.3d 960 (6th Cir. 2004) 

("Grand Traverse Band 11'3; Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqria R Siz~sla~l 

Indians 1.: Babbitt, 1 16 F. Supp. 2d 155, 161 -64 (D.D.C. 2000); Grnnd Traverse Rand of 

Ottawa and Clzippe~n Indians v. United States Attor~~y, 46 F. Supp. 2d 689,699-700 

(W.D. Mich. 1999) ("Grand Ti-averse Rand r'). As stated by the United States District 

Court for the Western District of Michigan: 

[Alccepting the State's position that some limitation is required, nothing in the 

record supports the requirement of Congressional action. Neither the statute nor 
the statutory history suggests such a limitation. Given the plain meaning of the 

language, the term "restoration" may be read in numerous ways to pIace belatedly 

restored tribes in a comparable position to earlier recognized tribes while 

simultaneously limiting after-acquired property in some fashion. 

Gmnd Traverse Band II, at 935. 

Land acquired after restoration may be limited by one or more factors: "For example, 

Iand that could be considered part of such restoration might appropriately be limited by 

the factual circumstances of the acquisition, the location of the acquisition, or the 

temporal relationship of the acquisition to the tribal restoration." Id. The NIGC adopted 

this tin-ee-factor analysis in the 2004 Opinion. In light of this analysis, we now reexamine the concIusions reached in the 2004 Opinion taking into consideration the 

Tribe's subsequently submitted information, 

Factual circumstances 

The factual circumstances of the Tribe's acquisition of the property are set forth 

in our 2004 Opinion. To briefly summarize, the Tribe acquired the Yreka parcel in 1997 

using funding from the Department of Housing and Urban Development for the purpose 

of providing housing to tribal members. lnterior accepted the land into trust in March 

2001. 

The Yreka parcel was not included among the Tribe's first trust acquisition 

requests, and it was not the Tribe's first trust acquisition. Nor was it the Tribe's first trust 

acquisition after Congress enacted IGRA in 1988. Specifically, between 1977 and 1999, 

hterior granted 10 trust acquisition requests submitted by the Tribe. These requests 

incIuded 20 separate parcels totaling 398 acres accepted into trust for the benefit of the 

Tribe prior to trust acquisition of the Yreka parcel. The Tribe argues that upon 

restoration, its most pressing need was for housing. One cannot ignore the fact that the 

Tribe consists of three popuIation cmters, all of which were in need of housing and 

governmental services. The first parcels acquired by the Tribe were in Happy Camp, 

which is the tribal headquarters. Tlzese parcels were used for tribal housing and a 

community center, These acquisitions were followed by ones in Yreka that were used for 

housing. 

In our opinion, these prior tmst acquisitions, and the Tribe's particular use of the 

properties, support the conclusion that the Yreka Trust Property acquisition was part of a 

broad tribal restoration scheme. Therefore, we believe that the factual circumstances of 

the acquisition weigh in favor of concluding that the parcel constitutes restored lands. 
Location of the parcel 

Historical Connections 

In our 2004 Opinion, we opined that the Tribe had failed to provide sufficient 

evidence to establish that the parcel remained important to the Tribe throughout history. 

Specifically, we noted that while the parcel was located within the cessation area of a 

treaty that was signed on November 4, 1 85 I, that treaty did not specify which acreage 

belonged to the Kmk and which belonged to other signatories. 

As part of its 2007 submission, the Tribe included a report (the "Beckham 

Report") prepared by Dr. Stephen Dow Beckl~arn, a professor of history at Lewis & Clark 

College. The report documents a history of Karuk activity in the Yreka area from a period 

preceding federal record keeping for that area. According to the report, during the 192Qs, 

the BIA made payments to schools throughout Siskiyou County for the enrollment of 

Karuk children. See Beckham Repost at 25. These payments appeared to cease during 

World War PI, although the BIA stopped collecting social statistics. Id. at 43. Dr. 

Beckham also compiled correspondence from the BIA which concludes that the Tribe 

had a long-standing presence in Yreka. For example, the BIA, as part of a review of the 

status of the Tribe, issued a report finding that 'Vhe aboriginal subentities of t11e Karok 

Tribe consisted of the communities at Happy Camp, Orleans and Siskiyou (Yreka).'"ee 

Fritz Letter at 2; 13 IBIA 76,78 (1985). Further, in 1978 the BIA acknowledged that the 

Tribe" "aboriginal camp sites were in precisely the same locations as they are today." 

See Meyers-Bush Mano at 1. In addition, the record includes oral history from a tribal 

elder who recalled his grandmother's statements concerning her connection to all of 

Siskiyou County, thus corroborating the written historical record on this point. See 

Declaration of Charles Thorn, Sr., 2007. Therefore, there is evidence of historical 

connections between the Tribe and the vicinity of the Yreka Trust Property sufficient to 

weigh in the Tribe's favor. 

Modern Connections 

The parcel is located 38 miles from the tribal headquarters at Happy Camp. The 

Yreka Trust Property was taken into trust to provide housing to the Tribe. Further, the 

Tribe has provided numerous declarations from tribal members, including the Tribal 

Chairman, describing modern connections to the Yreka area. For instance, one tribal 

member was born in Yreka in 1932, graduated hrn high school in Yreka in 1949, and 

then returned to Yreka in I954 having sewed in thc Korean War. See Declaration of 

Stanley Jerden, October 29,2007. The tribal member, Mr. Jerden, also recounts tribal 

council meetings held in the 1960s that he and others from Yreka attended. Id. Tribal 

member Lorelai Ginette Super stated that she was born in Yreka in 1941 and during the 

late 1950s "attended tribal council meetings with my mother in Yreka, Happy Camp, 

Orleans, and Scotts Valley. The tribal council meetings were aIways a mixture of people 

from all four of these cominunities." See Declaration of LorePai Ginnette Super, October 

30,2007. One tribal member, who served on the Happy Camp Tribal Council, stated that 

he moved to Yreka after World War I1 to work on a logging contract in 1953. He stated 
that there "were always three tibaI councils: Orleans, Happy Camp and Yreka." Sec 

Declaration of Charles Thom, Sr., 2007. Another tribal member, Franklin Raymond 

Thorn, stated that he was born in Yreka in 1956, lived in Sommes Bar until he was six 

and then moved back to Yreka. He hrther stated that the majority of his family lived in 

Yreka. See Declaration of FrankIin Raymond Thom, 2007. Yet another tribal member 

was born in Yreka in 1963 and graduated fiom high school in Yreka in 1983. See 

Declaration of Toni Ginette Jerry, October 27, 2007. Ms. Jerry also recalled attending 

tribal council meetings in the 1970s in Yreka with her mother and grandmother. Id. One 

tribal member born in Vseka in December of 1953 stated that "prior to recognition, there 

were three Kamk communities with strong family connections and allegiances between 

them." See Declaration of Bessie Mmson, October 26,2007. Finally, one tribal member 

was born in Yreka in 1935, graduated from high school in Yreka in 1954, moved away 

for a number of years and moved back to Yreka in 2007. See Declaration of Thelma May 

Slonan, October 29,2007. According to Dr. Beckham, of 3,383 (as of June 14,2005) 

alrolled Karuks, 685 were born in Yreka. 

The new information supplied by the Tribe sufficiently establishes that the Tribe 

had a significant historical relationship to the vicinity of the Yreka Trust Property, whch 

it has maintained to this day. Having established a historical connection to the vicinity of 

the Yreka Trust Property and a modern connection to the Tmst Property, we tlms find 

that the Iocation factor weighs in the Tribe's favor. 

Temporal relationship 

In our 2004 Opinion, we found an insufficient temporal relationship between the 

purported restoration of the Tribe and the acquisition of tlze parcel. Specifically, the Tribe 

acquired the parcel 18 years after the 1979 inclusion of the Tribe on the list of federally 

recognized tribes. Another two years passed before the Tribe applied to have the 

property taken into trust. Ultimately, the parcel was taken into trust by Interior in 2001. 

As explained in the 2004 Opinion, a 22 year gap between restoration and the land being 

brought into trust was pushing "the outer limits of what has previously been considered 

an acceptable delay."Our opinion expressly concluded, however, that we might be 

willing to find a suficient temporal relationship if the Tribe met the other factors - the 

factual circumstances of the acquisition and the location of the parcel and the Tribe's 

historic and modem connections to it. The Tribe's 2007 infomation demonstrates that 

the Tribe satisfies those factors. WE now conclude that the Tribe bas satisfied the 

temporal relationship test because the time period between the Tribe's restoration and 

acquisition of the parcel demonstrates a restoration schernc7 Therefore. upon reexamining the 2004 Opinion under the legal landscape that existed prior to the Part 292 

regulations, the parcel in question qualifies as restored lands under IGRA. 

Opposition by Shasta Nation of California 

' We note that ow conclusion regarding timing is consistent with the Part 292 regulations. which 

establishes a 25-year period between when a tribe was restored and the submittal of an application to take 

land into trust. See 25 C.F.R. Q 292.12(~)(2). 
A inember of the Shasta Nation of californiaR, a non-federally recognixed tribe, 

has submitted information to NIGC and argues that the Kamk Tribe has no historical 

connections to Yreka and, therefore, the parcel at question does not quali@ for gaming. 

But none of the documents contradict any of the information submitted by the Kamk 

Tribe. Rather, the submitted materials detail the Shasta Nation's historical presence in 

Yreka and Karuk's historical presence in other areas of Siskiyou County. But IGRA's 

restored lands exception does not require the Karuk Tribe to demonstrate that it was the 

only tribe with I~istoricaI connections to the area, or that the subject area was the only 

place where the Karuk Tribe has historical connections. Therefore, the documents 

submitted by the Shasta Nation do not change this opinion. 

Recommendation: Approve the ordinance on the grounds that the parcel qualifies as 

restored lands for a restored tribe within the meaning of IGRA. The Department of the 

Interior's Office of the Solicitor concurs in this opinion. 

The Shasta Nation has petitioned for Federal acknowledgement as an Indian tribe under 25 C.E.R. Part 83.