To: Chairman 

From: Acting General Counsel 

Subject: Whether gaming may take place on lands taken into tsust &er October 17, 1988, by the 

Mechmpda Indian Tribe of the Chico Rancheria 

Date: March 14,2003 

The Mechoopda Indian Tnie of the Chico Rancheria (Tribe or Mechoopda) has a managmmt 

contract pending before the Mona1 Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC). The Tribe also has a feeto-trust application pending before the Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs VIA) for 

land acquired by the Tribe after October 17, 7 988. The Tribe Wses to conduct gaming on this 

land. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) precludes gaming on trust land acquired after 

October 17, 1988, unless the land meets one of several statutory exemptions. 25 U.S.C. 5 271 9 

(Section 271 9). The Department of the Interior, OEce of the Solicitor requested that the MGC 

assume primary responsibility for an opinion as to whether fhe land in question, if taken into tnxst, 

would meet one of the statutory exemptions. The Tribe submitted documentation to support its 

claim that the land meets the 'restored lands" exception, The Tribe's submission satisfies us that the 

land in quation, should it be taken into trust, would fall within the ''restored lands" exception to 

Section 27 19's prohibition against gaming on trust land acquired afier October 17,1988. 

At issue is an approximately 645-acre parcel of land"(Chico parcel) located outside the Chim city 

limits in Butte County, California. The Tribe acquired the parcel in December 2001. The Tribe 

has a fee-to-trust application for this parcel pending before the BM. The CEco parcel is 

approximately 10 miles from the Tribe's original Ranchria, which was located in what is now 

the center of the city of Chico, California. 

I The legal description of the land is as fo11ows: All that certain real property situated in the County of Butte, State 

of California, described as folfows: that part of the east half of the northeast quarter which lies northeasterly of 

Highway 99 and the Oroville Chic0 Roa4 in sktion 1, township 20 north, range 2 east, M.D.B. & M; and all that 

portion lying north and east of the northerly line of the Chic0 Oroville Road in section 6, township 20 north, range 3 

east, M.D.B. & M;.and the north half of the northwest quarter; and the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter 

and the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter in section 5, township north, range 3 east, M.D.B. & M. 

NATloNAL HEADQUARTERS 1447 L St. w. Suite 9100. Washington, DC 20005 Tel: 201.632.7003 Fax: 202.632.7066 www.Nlcc.cov 

REGloHAL OFRCES Portland, OR; Sacramento. CA; Phoenix. AZ; St. Paul, MN;Tulsa. OK 
Mechoopda Indian Lands Opinion 

Page 2 

The Tribe submitted the following in support of its claim that the parcel in question was restored: 

Request for Indim Lands Determination, Dated March 26, 2002; Historical Use and Occupancy 

Report, Brian Biddy, EthnographesJHistorian, Dated May 9, 2002; Archeological Inventory of 

640 Acres Located Near the Intersection of Highways 99 and 149, in Butte County, California, 

Jelmer W. Eerkens, Dated June 2002; Second Historical Use and Occupancy Report, Brian 

Biddy, Ethnographer/Historian, Dated July 26, 2002; Letter from Christina K&e, Esq,, 

Monteau and Peebles, to Maria Getoff, Esq., NIGC, Re: Supplemental Infomation Regarding 

Request for Mechoopda Indian Lands Determination, Dated November 8,2002; and Letter hm 

Christina Kahze, Esq., Monteau and Peebles, to Maria Getoff, Esq., MGC, Re: Mechoopda 

Indian Tribe of the Chico Rancheria" Request for an Indian land Determination, Dated 

November 20,2002. 

Applicable Provisions of IGRA 

An Indian tribe may engage in gaming under IGRA only on "Indian Ids" that are '%within such 

tribe's jurisdiction." 25 U.S.C. 5 2 71 Om). 

IGRA defines "Indian lands" a: 

(A) all lands within the limits of any Indian reservation; and 

(B) any lands title to which is either held in trust by the United States for the benefit 

of any Indian tribe or individual or held by any Indian tribe or individual subject 

to restriction by the United States against alienation and over which an Indian 

tribe exercises governmental power [emphasis added]. 

25 U.S.C. $2703(4). 

NIGC regulations furher clarify the Indian lands definition: 

Indian lands means: 

(a) Land within the limits of an Indian reservation; or 

(b) Land over which an Indian tribe exercises governmental power and that is 

either -- 

(I) Held in trust by the United States for the benefit of any Indian tribe or 

individual; or 

(2) Held by an Indian tribe or individual subject to restriction by the United States 

against alienation. 

25 C.F.R 5 502.12. Lands that do not qualify as Indian Ids under IGRA generally are subject 

to state gambling laws. See National Indian Gaming Commission: Dt$nitions Under the Indian 

Gaming Regulatoiy Act, 57 Fed. Reg. 12382,12388 (1 992). 

The question whether a tribe 'has jurisdiction" and "exercises governmental power" over land on 

which the tribe proposes to conduct gaming can arise under a variety of circumstances. See, ag., 

Rhode Island v. Narragansett Indian Tribe, 19 F.3d 685, 701-703 (1st Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 

5 13 U.S. 91 9 (19941, superseded by statute as stated in hrarragansett Indian Tribe v. National 
Mechoopda Indian Lands Opinion 

Page 3 

Indian Gaming Commission, 158 F.3d 1335 (D.C.Cir.1998); Miami Tribe of Oklahow2a v. United 

States, 5 F. Supp.2d 121 3, 121 7-1 8 @.Ran. 1998) (Miami J7) (a tribe must have jurisdiction to 

exercise govanmental power); State ax re/. Graves v. United States, 86 F. Supp.2d 1094, I099 

@.Kan. 20003, urd and remanded, Kansas v. United States, 249 F.3d 1213 (loth Cir. 2007); 

Miami Tribe of Oklahoma v. United States, 927 F. Supp. 1419, 7423 (D.Kan. 1996) (MiarniI). 

In this case, to determine whether the parcel at issue is Indian land, the MGC must determine: 

(1) that the tribe has jurisdiction, and (2) if the proposed lands are trust or restricted lands outside 

the limits of an Indian reservation, that the tribe exercises governmental power over the proposed 

gaming lands. We consider the Tribe's proposed gaming site within this analytical framework. 

Fee-To-Trust hd Application 

The Tribe proposes to conduct class III gaming on the parcel. The Tribe has n fee-to-trust 

application pending before the BW. This opinion assumes that the BIA will take the land into 

trust for the benefit of the Tribe. This opinion cannot be relied upon if the land is not taken into 

trust. 

Jurisdiction 

Because the land at issue is off-reservation, the Tribe has the additional burden. of establishing 

that it exercises '"ovmental power" over the parcel it intends to use for gaming purposes. See 

25 C.F.R. 8 502.12@). "Tribal jwisdiction" is a threshold requirement to the exercise of 

governmental power. See, e.g., Rhode Island v. Nawugumett Indian Tra'be, 19 F.3d 685, 701- 

703 (1st Cir. 19941, ceut. denied, 513 U.S. 919 (1994), superseded by statute as stated in 

Narragansett Indian Tribe v. National Indian Gaming Commission, 158 F.3d 1335 

(D.C.Cir.1998) addition to having jurisdiction a tribe must exercise govenunental power in 

order to trigger [IGRA]); Miami Tribe of Oklahoma v. United States, 5 F. Supp.2d 1213, 1217-18 

(D.Kan.1998) (Mami II) (A tribe must have jurisdiction in order to be able to exercise 

governmental power); Miami Tribe of Okluhoma v. United States, 927 F. Supp. 141 9, 1423 

(D.Kan.1996) (Miami I) (the N1[GC implicitly decided that in order to exercise governmentaI 

power for purposes of 25 U.S.C. 5 2703(4), a tribe must fmt have jwisdiction over the land.); 

State ex. rel. Graves Y. United States, 86 F. Supp 2d 1094 @.Kan. 2000), afd and remanded, 

Kansas v, United States, 249 F.3d 12 13 (1 O~ Cir. 2001). This interpretation is consistent with 

IGMs language limiting the applicability of its key provisions to "[alny hdian tribe having 

jurisdiction over Indian lands," or to "Indian lands within such tribe's jurisdiction." 25 U.S.C. 

g 27 1 0(d)(3)(A), 27 1 O(b)(l)); see adso Rhode Isla~ld v. Nawagametd Indian Tribe, 19 F.3d 685, 

707 -703 (1 st Cir. 1994), cert. denied 5 13 U.S. 91 9 (1 994). As a threshold matter, we must 

analyze whether the Tribe possesses jurisdiction over the 

As a general matter, tribes are presumed to possess tribal jurisdiction within '%dim country.'" 

See South Dakota v. Yankton Siom Tribe, 522 U.S. 329 (1978). The Supreme Court has stated 

that Indian tribes are "invested with the right of self-government and jurisdiction over the 

persons and property within the limits of the territory they occupy, except so far as that 

jurisdiction has been restrained and abridged by treaty or act of Congress." Merrion v. JScarilla 

Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130,140 (1 982). 
Mechoopda Indian Lands Opinion 

Page 4 

Historically, the term "Xndian country" has been used to identify Iand that is subject to the 

"primary jurisdiction . . . [ofl the Federal Government and the Indian tribe inhabiting it." Alaska 

v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Gov't, 522 U.S. 520, 527 n.1 (1998). The U.S. Code defines 

ccIndian counfTY'. as: 

(a) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation.. ., (b) all dependent Indian communities.. ., and 

(c) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished.. . . 

18 U.S.C. $ 1 15 1. The Venetie court observed that Section 1 1 5 1 reflects the two criteria the 

Supreme Court "previously . . . had held necessary for a finding of 'Indian country' . . . first, [the 

lands] must have been set aside by the Federal Government for the use of the Indians as Indian 

land; second, they must be under federal superintendence." Venetie, 522 U.S. at 527. Prior to 

the enactment of section 1151 in 1948, the Court had already found that reservation lands and 

allotments satisfied those requirements. See, e.g., United States v. Pelican, 232 U.S. 442, 449 

(1914) (Indian country includes individual Indian allotments heId in trust by the United States 

because they "remain Indian lands set apart for Indians under governmental care"); DonnelEy v. 

United States, 228 U.S. 243, 269 (1913) (Indian country includes lands within formal 

reservations). The Yenetie court also observed that Congress used the term "dependent Indian 

communities" in Section 1151@) to codify the Court" understanding, as expressed in United 

States v. McGowan, 302 U.S. 535 (19381, and United States v- Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28 (1923), 

that other lands, although not formally designated as a reservation, may also possess the 

attributes of "federal set-aside" and "federal superintendence" characteristic of hdian country. 

Venetie, 522 US, at 530; see, e.g., McGownn, 302 U.S. at 538-539 (Reno Indian Colony Iand 

heId in trust by the United States is Indian country); SandovuI, 23 1 U.S. at 45-49 (FuebIo hdian 

lands). 

Several Supreme Court decisions hold that tribal trust lands are hdian country although they are 

not part of a formal reservation. In Oklahoma Tax Comm 'n v. Citizen Band Pofawafomi Indian 

Tribe of #Mohorna, the Supreme Court concIuded that Iands heId in trust by the United States for 

the Tribe were "validly set apart for the use of the Indians as such, under the superintendence of 

the Government," and therefore were Indian countx-y, with the consequence that the State did not 

have the authority to tax sales of goods to tribal members that occurred on those lands. 498 U.S. 

505,5 1 1 (1 991). The Potawatomi Court specifically rejected the contention that tribal trust land 

was not hdian country because it was not a reservation, noting that no "precedent of this Court 

has ever drawn the distinction between tribal trust lmd and resewations that Oklahoma urges." 

Id; see also Okhhoma Tax Comm'n v. Chickasaw Nation, 515 U.S. 450,452-453 and n.2 (1995) 

(treating tribal trust lands as Indian country); Oklahoma Tax Comm 'n v. Sac & Fox Nation, 508 

U.S. 114, 123--125 (1993) (same); United States v. John, 437 U.S. 634, 649 (1978) (obseming 

that "[tlhere is no apparent reason why these lands, which had been plmhased [by the United 

States] in previous years for the aid of those hdians, did not become a 'reservation,' at least for 

purposes of federal criminal jurisdiction"); United States v. McGowan, 302 U.S. 535, 539 

(1 938). 
Mechoopda Indian Lands Opinion 

Page 5 

Here, consistent with these decisions, once the land is taken into trust for the benefit of the Tribe, 

the land will be "Indian counhy,'%thin the meaning of section 1151. The land has been 

"validly set-aside for the tribe under the superintendence of the federal government." United 

States v. McGowan, 302 U.S. at 539, quoted in Venetie, 522 U.S. at 529. 

It is unnecessary to decide whether the Tribe's land is more properly categorjzed as an informal 

reservation under section 1 15 1 (a) or as a dependent Indian community under section 1 E 5 1 (b) 

because, regardless of category, the property in this case, held by the United States in trust for 

the Tribe, would be Indian country. The Tribe's land comes within at least one of the three 

statutory categories, because the trust lands possess the two characteristics of Indian counhy 

reflected in section 1451. See Venetie, 522 U.S. at 527. Therefore, when the land is acquired 

into trust, it is Indian country, and we can conclude that the Tribe has jurisdiction over it. 

Exercise of Governmental Authority 

The Tribe must also have a present day exercise of governmental authority over the land. See 25 

U.S.C. 8 2703(4)@); see also, Narragansett Indinn Tribe, T 9 F.3d at 703; Cheyenne River Sioux 

Tribe v. State of South Dakota, 830 F. Supp. 523 @.S.D. 1993), afd 3 E3d 273 (x'~ Cir. 1993). 

Present day exercise of governmentaI authority cannot be established before the land is acquired 

into trust. The Tribe has submitted information indicating that, once the land is in trust, it will 

exercise gavernmenta'l authority over the parcel through various environmental, zoning, trespass, 

law enforcement and other ordinances and programs, We can reasonably rely on the Tribe's 

representations and assume for the purposes of this opinion that the Tribe will exercise those 

authorities when the land is acquired into trust. 

Lands Acquired in Tmst by the Secretary ARE October 17, 1988 

Even though a parcel may meet the definition of "Indian lands" under 25 U.S.C. 5 2703(4), we 

must still determine whether the general gaming prohibition under IGRA would bar the Tribe 

from gaming on the trust land. Under Section 271 9(a$ of IGRA, gaming is prohibited on lands 

acquired by the Secretary of the Interior into trust for the benefit of an Indian tribe aRa October 

17, 1988, unless the land falls within certain exceptions in 25 U.S.C. § 2719(b). Accordingly, 

we must review the exceptions to determine-whether a tribe can conduct gaming on afteracquited trust lands. 

The Tribe contends that the proposed site meets the requirements of the exception set forth at 25 

U.S.C. $ 2719(b)(l)(B)(iiiFrestoration of lands for an Indian tribe that is restored to Federal 

recognition"-and thus is outside the proscriptions on after-acquired land. To determine 

whether the Tribe meets the restoration exception we must determine, first, whether the Tribe is 

a "restored" tribe and, second, whether the land was taken into trust as part of a "restoration" of 

Iands to the Tribe. 

"Restored" Tribe 
Mechoopda Indian Lands Opinion 

Page 6 

The key terms, '?restored" and "restoration" are not defined in the text of IGRA. Nor are they 

defmed in the various federal regulations issued by the MGC and the Department of the Interior 

to implement IGRA. 

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan recently addressed the definition of 

'hstored" and "restoration" in Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians v. United 

States Attorney, 198 F. Supp. 2d 920 (W.D. Mich. 2002). At issue was whether the Grand 

Traverse Band was a restored tribe and whether the parcel on which gaming was conducted was 

restored lands. The Gmnd Traverse court held that both "restore" and "'restoration" should be 

given their ordinary meaning C'In no sense has a proprietary use of 'restore' or 'restoration' been 

shown to have occurred." Id. at 93 1). AppIying the ordinary meaning of the words, the court 

concluded that the Band's history showed that the Band was in fact restored: 

h sum, the undisputed history of the Band's treaties with the United States and its 

prior relationship to the Secretary ad the BLA demonstrates That the Band was 

recognized and treatied with by the United States .... Only in 1872 was that 

relationship administratively terminated by the BL4. 'Fhis history-f recognition 

by Congress through treaties (and historical administration by the Secretary), 

subsequent withdrawal of recognition, and yet later re-achowledpent by the 

Secretary-fits squarely within the dictionary definitions of "restore" and is 

reasonably construed as a process of restoration of tribal recognition. The plain 

language of subsection @)(l)@)(iii) therefore suggests that this ]Band is restored. 

Grand Traverse Band at 933. 

An examination of the pattern of Mechoopda's history shows that it is similar to the pattern in 

the case of Grand Traverse Band. The Mechoopda Indian village was originally established in 

what is now Butte County, California and the present-day city of Chico by Genera1 and Mrs. 

John Bidwell for their Indian employees. Tn 1849, General Bidwell puschased from William 

Dickey a Mexican land grant of more than 22,000 acres, known as the Rancho del Arroyo Chico. 

The Mechoopda Tribe occupied this Iand base. In 7 85 1, the United States entered into a treaty 

with the Mechoopda, in which the Tribe was promised land approximately 20 miles long and 6 

miles wide in exchange for relinquishing all claim to their former territory. This treaty, which 

was never ratified, was found in 1905 by Senate clerks, (Request for Indian Lands 

Determination, March 26,2002, page 6) 

Between 1 909 and 19 1 8, Mrs. Bidwell gave 26 acres, where the Mechoopda Indians were living, 

to the Board of Home Missions in trust for the Mechoopda Indians. In 1939, this land was 

conveyed to the United States in trust for the Mechoopda Indians under the authority of the 

appropriation for Homeless California Mians of 1 925, reappropriated in 1 93 9, 5 0 Stat.564, 573. 

Id. 

On August IS, 195 8, Congress enacted the California Rancheria Act, authorizing the termination 

of the trust status of the lands and the Mian status of 41 California rancherias, including the 

Mechoopda. The Tribe was terminated by proclamation pubIished on June 2, S 967. Pub. L, No. 

85-671,72 Stat. 619, amended by Act of August 1 1,1964, Pub. L. No. 88-41 9,7S Stat. 390. 
Mechoopda Indian Lands Opinion 

Page 7 

In 1986, the Mechoopda Triie, along with. thee other Indian Rancherias and several individuaIs, 

filed suit in federal court challenging the federa1 government's termination. Scotts VaIIey v. 

United States, No. C-86-3660-VRW (N.D. Cal. Filed 1986). On January 6, 1992, the 

Mechoopda Tribe and the United States entered into a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment to settle 

the Tribe's claims. In the Stipulation, the United States agreed that the Tribe was not lawfully 

terminated and further agreed that the Tribe and its members were eligible fur all the rights and 

benefits extended to other federally-recognized Indian tribes. (Stipulation for Entry of Judgment, 

Manteau Submission, March 26, 2002, at Exhibit A). On May 4, 1992, the Assistant Secretary 

for hdian Affairs published a notice in the Federal Register that the Tribe and its members were 

reinstated to their status that existed prior to termination. 57 Fed. Reg. 19, 133 (May 4, 1992). 

The Mechoopda Tribe is now on the list of federally-recognized Indian tribes. 65 Fed. Reg. 

13,298, 13,300 (2000). 

The qualified voters of Mechoopda adopted their constitution on February 1, 1998 at a 

Secretarial election. The BIA Sacramento Area Director approved the constitution on February 

13, 1998, pursuant to delegated authority under the Act of June 18, 1934. 

In short, iike the Grand Traverse Band, the Tribe has been recognized by the federal government, 

terminated, and again recognized. Accordingly, we find that the Tribe qualifies as "an Indian 

tribe that is restored to Federal recognition" under 25 U.S.C. 5 2719(b)(l)(B)(iii). 

Restoration of Lands 

Having concluded that the Tribe is a restored tribe under IGRA, the question remains whether 

the land at issue was "taken into trust as a part of. . . the restoration of lands for an Indian tribe 

that is restored to Federd recognition." 25 U.S.C. 3 27 19@)(1)@)(iii). 

Federal courts, the Department of the Interior, and NlGC have recently grappled with the 

concept of restoration of land. In so doing, they established several guideposts for a restorationof-Iand analysis. First, "restored" and "restoration" must be given their plain, primary meanings. 

Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Ch@pewa Indians v. United States Attorney fir the Western 

District of Michigan ("Grand Traverse Band 11'2 Supra,. Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower 

Umpqua & Sa'z~~law Indians v. Babbitt ("Coos", 116 F. Supp.2d 155, 161 (D.D.C. 2000). In 

addition, to be "restored," lands need not have been restored pursuant to Congressional action or 

as part of a tribe's restoration to federal recognition. Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and 

Chippewa Indians v. United States Attornq for the Western Dish-cf of Michigan ("Grand 

Traverse Band 1'7' 46 F. Supp.2d 689, 699 (W.D. Mich. 1999); Coos at 264. The language of 

section 271 9@)(1)@)(iii~Yestoration of lands for an Indian tribe that is restored to Federal 

recognition"-"implies a process rather than a specific transaction, and most assuredly does not 

limit restoration to a single event." Grand Traverse Band I1 at 93 6; Grand Traverse Band I at 

701. 

Nonetheless, there are limits to what constitutes restored lands. As NIGC stated in the Grand 

Traverse Opinion, "[Wle believe the phrase kestoration of lands' is a difficult hurdle and may 

not necessarily be extended, for example, to any lands that the bribe conceivably once occupied 
Mechoopda Indian Lands Opinion 

Page 8 

throughout if s history." NIGC Grand Traverse Opinion at p. 1 5; see also Ofice of the Solicitor's 

Memorandum Re: Confedera fed Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua di Xiuslaw Indians v. Babbitt 

(Office of the Solicitor" Coos Opinion) (Ti also seems clear that restored land does not mean 

any aboriginal land that the restored tribe ever occupied," p. 8). 

The courts in Coos and Grand Traverse Band I and I7 noted that some limitations might be 

required on the term Lcrestoration" to avoid a result that "any and all property acquired by 

restored tribes would be eligible for gaming." Coos at 1 64; Grand Traverse Band I at 700; see 

also Grand Traverse Band I1 at *934-935 ("Given the plain meaning of the language, the term 

'restoration" may be read in numerous ways to place belatedly restored tribes in a comparable 

position to earlier recognized tribes while simultaneously limiting after-acquired property in 

some fashiony'). AII three courts proposed that land acquired after restoration be limited by '?he 

factual circumstmces of the acquisition, the location of the acquisition, or the temporal 

relationship of the acquisition to the tribal restoration. Id. h this case, these factors lead us to 

conclude that the Tribe's land acquisition is a "restoration." 

1. Factual Circumstances of the Acquisition 

The Tribe acquired the approximateIy 645-acre parcel in December 2001. Also in December 

2007, the Tribe submitted a fee-to-trust land application to the BIA. The Tribe's acquisition 

arose in the following context: 

The originaI 26-acre Rancheria was conveyed to the United States in fmst for the Mechoopda 

Tribe in 1939. When the Tribe was terminated in 1967, there were somewhere between 50 and 

70 Mechoopda tribal members living on the Rancheria. However, this entire land base was lost 

through unscrupulous land sales. Upon restoration in 1992, the Tribe was landless. The Tribe's 

former Rancheria was now located in the center of the city of Chico. Approximately one-half of 

the old Chico Rancheria is now owned by he State of California and is part of the campus of 

CaIifomia State University, Chico. The other one-half contains 50 separate parcds and lots and 

are now devoted to mixed residential and commercial uses. By its terms, the Stipulation and 

Order restoring the Mechoopda Tribe prevents it from reestablishing its former Rancheria 

boundaries. Mechoopda, therefore, had no choice but to look for land outside the City of Chico. 

Following restoration, the Tribe began to slowly reorganize, with a tribal oEce initially located 

in the home of the Tsibe's first Chairperson. In 1994, Zhe tribal office was moved to Chico, 

CaIifornia. The Tribe focused on establishing a base roll, constitution, and ordinances and 

policies. Mechoopda administered its first HUD program at the end of 1996 and purchased land 

to address the immediate housing needs of tribal members. Unfortunately, this land was an 

a1mond orchard located In a flood plain and unsuitable for a housing project. HUD allowed the 

Tribe to keep the orchard as an economic deveIopment project, and it continues in operation 

today. (Request for Indian Lands Determination, Mmh 26,2002, page 2.) 

In 1996, the Mechoopda prepared a restoration plan in colIaboration with the BXA wherein it 

identified a parcel of land that it desired to acquire and transfer to the United States as trustee for 

the Tribe. One of the planned uses for the proposed property was to be a tribally-operated 

gaming facility, In August 1998, the Solicitor's Office of the Department of the Interior 
Mechoopda Indian Lands Qinion 

Page 9 

informed Mechoopda that it disagreed with the Tribe's contention that the proposed land 

constituted restored lands under the IGRA. The Department based its disagreement on its 

interpretation that the restored lands exception only applied to tribes restored by Congress. Td. 

at 3. Thereafter, in 1999 and 2000, two federal courts held in other cases that this interpretation 

of the IGRA's restored lands exception was too restrictive. Grond Traverse, Szpra; Coos, 

Supra. 

In December 2001, the Tribe purchased the approximately 645-acre parcel at issue, It is Iocated 

about 10 miles from the Tribe's former Rancheria. 

''Restoration" denotes a taking back or being put in a former position. Coos at' 162. It might 

mean 'keacquired." Id. 'restoration of lands' could be construed to mean just that; the 

tribe would be placed back in its former position by reacquiring lands." In any event, 

''restoration" does not mean "acquired." We therefore must Iook further for indicia that the land 

acquisition in some way restores to the Tribe what it previously had. 

2. Location 

The parcel at issue on which the Tribe proposes to game is Iocated outside the boundaries of the 

Rancheria as it existed immediately prior to termination under the California Rancheria Act. 

Specifically, the proposed gaming site is approximately ten (1 0) miles fiom the boundaries of the 

forma Rancheria. (Request for Indian Lands Determination, March 26, 2002, page 3). 

(Because the Stipulation and Order restoring the Tribe prevented the Tribe from reestablishing 

its former Ranchmia boundaries, the Tribe had no choice but to purchase land outside those 

boundaries.) 

WhiIe restored lands may include off-reservation parcels, there must be indicia that the Imd has 

in some respect been recognized as having a significant relation to the Tribe. Grand Traverse 

Band I at 702. h Grand Traverse Band II, the court held that the lands at issue were restored 

because they lay within counties that had previously been ceded by the tribe to the United States. 

Grand Traverse Band 11 at 936. This ruling was consistent with its opinion in Grand Traverse I, 

in which the court stated that the land's location "thin a prior reservation.. .is significant 

evidence that the land may be considered in some sense restored." Id. In its Grand Traverse 

Opinion, NTGC further found that restoration was shown by the Band's "substantial evidence 

tending to establish that the ... site has been important to the tribe thughout its history and 

remained so immediately on resumption of federal recognition." hd Traverse Opiaion at 15. 

The tribe's history included the ceding of that very ground to the United States by the ancestors 

of the present tribe in a 1836 treaty. Id. at 9-10, f 6. As a result, NIGC concIuded that the Band 

had aL%istorical nexus" to the Imd. Id. at 17. 

Brian Biddy, the Tribe's ethnographer and an expert on California Indian Communities, states 

that it is difficult to establish, with certainty, the exact boundaries of the Tribe's traditional 

territory. This is due to the lack of documentary materials detailing the traditional ethno2 The Tribe had an option to purchase this land. The Tribe let the option expire when it received the adverse opinion 

from the Department of Interior. 
Mechoopda Indian Lands Opinion 

Page 10 

geography of the region. He Wer states that, 'YtJhe rapidity in which traditional native life 

changed, and the subsequent abandonment of villages, resulted in a significant loss of geographic 

information by the time anthropologists and ethnographers began to interview elderly native 

people of the region during the first: two decades of the twentieth century." (Mechoopda Indian 

Tribe's Territory, Second Historical Use and Occupancy Report, July 26, 2002, page-l, Exhibit 

5). 

Despite the lack of information as to specific boundaries of territory, Biddy indicates that C. Hart 

Merriam" Field Notes are the most informative concerning the names and locations of former 

villages in the Chico area. Merriam was an ethnologist and botanist who interviewed residents 

of the Chico Raslchesia on at least three occasions: June 8, 1903; November 20 and 21, 1919; 

and May 1923. Based on these interviews, Merriam was able to approximate the boundaries that 

contained the Mechoopda villages, of which there were 23: Biddy plotted those boundaries on a 

map submitted by the Tribe as Exhibit 3 to the Second Historical Use and Occupancy Repert. 

The map shows that the land the Tribe purchased falls squarely within those boundaries. 

In addition, the land at issue is part of an area occupied by the Northwestern Valley Maidu, of 

whom the Mechoopda are the sole sunriving group. "With the demise of other Sacramento 

Valley villages, residents of those Northwestern Valley Maidu villages, including Udahwek, 

Eskini and so forth, congregated at the Meehoopda village; by 1900, Mechoopda was the only 

remaining village of the Northwestern Valley Maidu. (Declaration of Craig D. Bates, para. 9, 

Exhibit H to Monteau Submission, March 26,2002.) 

Furthermore, the land is within a land base promised to the Mechoopda in the unratified treaty of 

1 85 1. (Treaty of August 1, 185 1 Between United States and the Chiefs, Captains and Headmen 

of the Mi-chop-sa, Es-Kuin, etc,, Tribes of Indians, Exhibit J to Request for Indian Lands 

Determination, March 26, 2002.) The treaty promised approximately 227 square miles of land, 

reaching roughly fiom Chico to Nimshew to Oroville. (Map of Zand Boundary Granted by the 

U.S. Treaty of 1 85 1, Exhibit J to Monteau Submission, March 26, 2002 .) Biddy's map shows 

that the parcels at issue are within the unratified treaty area. (Second Historical Use and 

Occtlpancy Report, Exhibit 3). 

According to Merriam, there were 23 villages which made up the Mechoopda Tribe. Merriam, 

C. Hart, Mitchopda (Mechoopda) Territory and Villages, Unpublished Manuscript, Bancroft 

Library, University of California Berkeley, undated, Several of these villages are located in 

close proximity to the parcels at issue, and include Eskeni-5 'Jz rniIes; Hololopai-9 miles; 

Taimkoyo-7 miles; Mechoopda-8 miles; and Boga-16 '/z miles. Eskeni, Hololopai and 

Mechoopda were signers of the 1 85 1 unratified treaty. wequest for Indian Lands Determination, 

March 26,2002, pages 5-1 0.) 

The proposed site has cultural and historical significance to the %be. Three buttes with cultural 

significance to the Mechoopda are located one mile north of the proposed site. These buttes 

figure prominently in the myth of Onkoitopeh, n cultural hero of the Mechoopda. (Historical 

3 The boundaries are as follows: "[t]erritory fkom just south of Nord, southerly to a little beyond Durham, and hm 

Sacramento River easterly to the foothills." Merriam, C. Hart, Mitchopda Territory and Villages, Unpublished 

manuscript, Bmmft Libmy, University of California Berkeley, undated. 
Mechoopda Indian Lands Opinion 

Page 1 I 

Use and Occupancy Report, May 9, 2002, page 3.) In addition, an historic trail, linking the 

villages of Ushtupedah and Weleuduh to other Maidu villages crosses the parcels. In historic 

times, the trail would have linked the Mechoopda at Chico with other villages in the Oroville 

region. In addition, the lands encompassed by the parcels include areas likely used in the late 

19" century and before by the Mechoopda for hunting and gathering. (Bates Declaration at para. 

10, Exhibit H to Request for Indian Lands Determination, March 26,2002). 

Based on the above, the Tribe has proven a historical and cultural nexus to the Iand suEcient to 

show that the parcel was not merely an acquisition but a restoration of previousIy used lands. 

3. Temporal. Relationship of Acquisition to the Tribal Restoration 

The Tribe was restored through the Scotts Volley StipuIated Judgment in 1992. The Tribe 

acquired the parcel at issue in December 2001, nine years after the Tribe was restored. This nine 

year gap is the same as that in the case of the @and Traverse Band's off-reservation acquisition, 

which was taken into trust nine years after Grand Traverse Band's achowledgement through the 

federal administrative acknowledgement procedures. Also similar to Grand Traverse Band, the 

acquisition is the first and only land acquisition (aside from the aImond orchard) aRer the Tribe's 

restoration. 

At the heart of this inquiry is the question of whether the timing of the acquisition supports a 

conclusion that the Iand is restored. In its Office of the solicitor"^ Coos Opinion, the Department 

of the Interior found that a 14-year lapse between a tribe's restoration and the acquisition of Iand 

into trust did not foreclose a fmding that the land was restored. Associate Solicitor Phil Hogen 

observed: 

Congress allowed 14 years to elapse before restoring the Peterson Tract to 

the Tribe. Thus, in this particular instance, without some relevant 

attenuation, the mere passage of time should not be determinative. Also, it 

is not improper of the Department to take account of the practical effect of 

the passage of the restored lands exception. For instance, it will often be 

the case that newly restored tribes will, out of practical necessity, take 

some time to acquire land [footnote omitted]. The Department recognizes, 

as Congress surely did, that newly restored tribes do not have readily 

available funds for land acquisition, that land is not always available, and 

the process of land acquisition is time consuming .... Thus, the Tribes 

quickly acquired the land as soon as it was available and within a 

reasonable amount of time after being restored. 

Office of the Solicitor's Coos Opinion, pp. 13-14. 

Furthermore, as part of the Stipulation in Scotts Valley, the Tribe agreed not to seek to reestablish 

the former boundaries of the Chico Rancheria. The Stipulation provides for the acquisition of 

land outside the fomier Rancheria boundaries as part of the Tribe's restoration. (Scotts VaIIT v. 

United States, No. C-86-3660-VRW W.D. Cal. Filed 1986)). 
Mechoopda Indian Lands Opinion 

Page 1.2 

Although the Chico pace1 was purchased nine years after the Tribe's restoration, the belated 

purchase is not fatal to a finding of restoration for the land. The Tribe's initial reorganization 

and search for appropriate land bases took several years md experienced significant obstacles. 

However, building a gaming facility was part of its economic development and land use plans 

from the beginning. Once the Tribe was in a position to acquire a sufficient amount of usable 

land to accomplish these goals, the Tribe moved quickly to complete its economic development 

plans. Based on these facts, we can find that the Chico parcel falls within the Tribe's process of 

restoration. 

We conclude that the facts surrounding the timing of the acquisition support a determination of 

"restored land." A aine-year gap between the Tribe's restoration and the land's acquisition is a 

sufficient "temporal reIationship7' to establish lands as "restored." More importantly, the 

acquisition of the parcel was the first (with the exception of the unusable almond orchard) for 

this restored tribe. 

In light of federal cases interpreting the restored lands exception, and the factual circumstances, 

location, and timing of the acquisition, we conclude that the Tribe's land may be considered 

"restored" fo~ purposes of the pending fee-to-trust acquisition for gaming. The Trjbe has shown 

that the land has been acquired to address the issue of landlessness and that there is a historical 

and cultural nexus between the Tribe and the land. 

Conclusion 

IGRA permits tribes to conduct gaming on Indian laads only if they have jurisdiction ~ver those 

lands, and only if they assert jurisdiction by exercising governmental power which will enable 

the tribe, through appropriate ordinances, to satisfy the statute's substantial and detailed 

requirements for the regulation of gaming. After careful review and consideration, we conclude 

that the Tribe's land, should it be taken into trust, qualifies as Indian Iands as defined by IGRA 

and MGC regulations. A close examination of the documentation submitted shows that the 

Tribe had a historical and cultural connection to the land and that the: land is therefore restored. 

The proposed gaming site therefore falls within the restored land exception to Section 271 9. The 

Tribe may therefore lawfully conduct gaming on its proposed site pursuant to IGRA when it is 

acquired by the United States in trust for the Tribe, provided the Tribe complies with a11 other 

applicable requirements of XGRA. 

The Department of fhe Interior, Of5ceof the Solicitor concurs with our conchsion. 

If you have any questions, Maria Getoff, Staff Attorney, is assigned to this matter. 

Signed: Twp+ by J. Coleman, &c~~eneral Counsel