United StatesDepartment of the Interior

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Washington.DC 20240

DEe 2 2 2010

Honorablc Jason Hart

Chairman. Redding Rancheria

2000 Redding Rancheria Road

Redding. California 96001

Dear Chairman Ilart:

Background

On March 10.2009. the Redding Rancheria (Tribe) transmitted to the Office of the Assistant

Secretary Indian Affairs, Officc of Indian Gaming a request for trust acquisition and a

determination from the Department of the Interior that ccrtain lands in Shasta County. California.

rcferred to as "Strawbcrry Fields" and the "Adjacent 80 Acres" (the Parcels) are or \\lould be

cligible for gaming pursuant to 25 U.S.c. § 2719(b)(l)(B)(iii) and the implementing regulations

set forth in 25 C.F.R. Part 292. The Tribe amended its request in July 2010 to include the

Adjaccnt 80 Acres.

rhe Tribe seeks to have the Parcels in Shasta County. California. taken into trust in order to

conduct gaming. The Parcels consist of a total of231.90 acres located approximately 1.6 miles

from the original 30.89 acres of land that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) purchas<..'<ffor

members of the Tribe in 1922 near Redding. California (the original Rancheria). Because the

Parcels would be "acquired by the Secretary in trust for the benefit of an Indian tribe after

October 17. 1988." they would only be eligible for gaming if they meet one of the exceptions

within Section20 of the IndianGamingRegulatoryAct(IORA). 25l1.S.C. * 27]9.

I have determined that the Tribe is a restored tribe. but the Tribe's prior rcquests for trust

acquisitions and its current gaming operation preclude a finding under the regulations that the

Parcels are eligible for the restored lands exception.

The subject Parcels are located in an unincorporated part of Shasta County. California and are

approximately].6 miles from the Redding Rancheria. approximately 3.7 miles b~ road.

Joe Strawberry Fields property includes five separate parcels. \vhicr total approximately

]5] .89 acres. and it is bound by the Sacramento River on the west and Interstatc 5 on the east.

These parcels were purchased by the Tribe in 2004 and are currently held in fee. The Adjacent

80 Acres includes three parcels located directly to the south of the Strawberry Fields property.

The Tribe purchased this property in April 20] 0 and it is also currently held in fee.

The original Rancheria was comprised of approximately 30.89 acres. and was purchased by the

United States for the members or the Trihe on August 10. ]922. In ]965. the Ranchcria's status

as a federally recognized tribe was terminated pursuant to the California Ranchcria Tcrn1ination
Act of 1958. On June 11. 1984.the Tribe wasrestored to federally-recognizedstatus pursuant to

a court-approved settlement agreement \\;th the United States. lIardwick \.. United Stales.

No. C79-1710 SW (N.D. Cal. 1983).

Since restoration. the Tribe has become the beneficial owner of about 8.5 acres of trust lands. all

within the boundaries of the original Rancheria. The Tribe' s first trust holdings came in 1992

when the Bureau of Indian Affairs approved trust-to-trust transfers of scveral small trust parcels

that wcre previously held in trust for individual tribal members. The Tribe currently owns and

operates a gaming facility called the Win-River Casino on two of these trusHo-trust transfer

parcels within the original Rancheria.

The Tribe submitted its first fee-to-trust acquisition request in 1995.~ The request was to acquire

into trust a 1.06-acre site where the Tribe maintained its Head Start facilitv.2 The Tribe

suhmitted another fee-to-trust acquisition request sometime prior to Dece.:nbcr 6. :2000.3 This

rcquest included four on-reservation parcels. including a 0.5-acre sitc referred to as the Memorial

Parcel or thc Tribal Burial Grounds and three other parcels currently used as parking lots for the

Win-River Casino." In January 2009. the Department accepted thc Head Start and Memorial

parcels into trust for the benefit of the Tribe.' Currently, the three parking lot parcels remain

held hy the Tribe in fee.b

In November 2003. the Tribe adopted Tribal Council Resolution #055-11-12-03 requesting the

Dcpartmcnt to accept the Strawberry Fields property (not including the Adjacent 80 Acres) into

trust for the Tribe. It is unclear from the existing record when this resolution was received by the

Department. although we know it was sometime before April 2006 whcn the Regional Director

of the BIA sent a letter to the lribe referencing the rcsolution.7 The Tribc's trust acquisition

request for Strawherry Fields. dated November 2003. could not have been received before. or

even contemporaneously \vith. the Tribe.s requests f()rtrust acquisition of the Head Start and

Memorial parcels. both of which were submitted prior to December :WOO.

In April 2009. the Tribe submitted a trust acquisition request for three small parcels totaling

3.65 acres where the Tribe maintains its tribal administration building.8 In June 2010. the

~ecrctary granted that request and acquired those lands into trust for the Tribe.Q

Letter tTom Barbara Murphy. CEO of Redding Rancheria. to Virgil Akins. Superntendent of Califomi a Agenc~ of

RIA. n:: fee-Io-trust application package for Head Stan facility AP;::049-tOO-22 (Jan. 19. 1(95).

, /d.: see also Letter from SaraDUlschkeSetshwaclo.Counsel for the Tribe. to PalliaHan. Director01'001 omce

of Indian Gaming at 4 (Oct. 29. 2010).

'lot ice of Land Acquisition Application (Dec. 6. 2000).

'id.: see a/so Letter tTomSara Dutschke Sctshwaelo. Counsel tor the Tribe. to Paula Ilan. Director of 001 Office

of Indian Gaming at 4 (Oct. 29. 2010): Letter from Barbara Murphy. Chairperson of the Redding Rancheria. to

Paula Han. oars Office of Indian Gamin!! at 10 (Dec. 22. 2008) (".Request").

< Grdnt Deed APS: 049-400-002 <accepted Jail. 21. 2009): Grant Deed APN: 049-400-027 (accepted Jan.:2 1. 2009).

,.Request at 10 (Dec. 22. 2008).

- Letter from Clayton Gregof). BIA Regional Director. to Barbara Murphy. Redding Rancheria (April 19.2006).

~Letter trom Sara Dutschke Setshwaclo. Counsel for the Tribe. to Paula Han. Director of 001 Office of Indian

Gamin!!.at 4 (OCl. 29. 2010).

'. Gram-Deed AP1'-i049-400-14; 049-t00-023: 049-400-007 (accepted June 3. 2010).

2

I
In July 2010. the Tribe amended its fee-to-trust application for Strawberry Fields to include the

Adjacent 80 Acres that the Tribe had recently purchased. 10

Legal Analysis

Subject to several potential exceptions. IGRA generally prohibits gaming on any lands acquired

by the Secretary in trust for the benefit of an Indian tribe after October] 7. ]988.

25 t' .S.c. § 2719(a). This general prohibition is inapplicable when:

lands are taken into trust as part of.

(i) a settlement of a land claim.

(ii) the initial reservation of an Indian tribe acknowledged by the Secreta~

under the Federal ackno\vledgement process. or

(iii)the restoration oflands for an Indian tribe tha: is restored to Federal

recognition.

25 l .S.c. § 2719(b)(1 )(B).

On August 25. 2008. after extensive notice and public comment. the Department published

comprehensive regulations governing gaming on lands acquired afler October 17. ]988 at

25 C.F.R. Part 292. The Department's Part 292 regulations include standards to detennine

whether a tribe qualities for the restored lands exception. The first inquiry is whether the Tribe

meets the regulato~' requirements for a restored tribe. In this case. J find that the Tribe is a

restored tribe. The second inquiry is whether the Tribe meets the regulatory requirements under

Sections 292.11 and 292.12. J tind that the Tribe has established both a historical and modern

connection to the land. but I have detennined that the Tribe cannot establish a temporal

connection under Section 292.12( c).

A. The Redding Rancheria is a Restored Tribe.

The regulations pertaining to the restored lands exception provide in part:

Gaming ma~ occur on newl:>acquired lands under this exception only "hen all of the

following conditions in this section are met:

(a) The tribe at one time was federally recognized. as evidenced by its meeting the

criteria in ~292.8:

(b) I"hctribe at some later time lost its government-to-government relationship by one

of the means specified in § 292.9:

(c) At a time after the tribe lost its government-to-government rclationship. the tribe

was restored to Federal recognition by one of the means specified in 292.] 0: and

(d) The newly acquired lands meet the criteria of "restored lands" in 292.1].

25 C'.F.R. ~292.7.

--- - ---

Ii letter from Jason Hart. Acting Chairperson of the Redding Rancheria. to Paula Ilart. DOl Office of Indian

Gaming (July ~.". 2010).

...

.'
1. The Redding Rancheria was a federally recognized tribe.

In order to show that a tribe was at one time federally recognized for purposes of

Section 292.7(a). a tribe must demonstrate one of the following:

(a) The United States at one time entered into treaty negotiations with the tribe:

(b) The Department determined that the tribe could organize under the Indian

Reorganization Act or the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act:

(c) Congress enacted legislation specific to, or naming, the tribe indicating that a

government-to-government relationship existed;

(d) The United States at one time acquired land for the tribc's benefit: or

(c) Some other evidence demonstrates the existence of a government-to-governmcnt

relationship between the tribe and the United States.

25 C.F.R. § 292.8.

As detailed in thc Background section. the United Statcs acquired lands for the benefit of the

Tribe and established the reservationJRancheria in 1922. Therefore. the Tribe meets the

requirements 0[25 C.F.R. § 292.8(d).

2. The Redding Rancheria lost its government-to-~overnment

relationship.

Once a tribe establishes that it was at one time federally recognized. as required b)

25 C.F.R. § 292.7(a). it is required by Section 292.7(b) to show that its governmcnt-togovernment relationship was terminated by one of the following means:

(a) Legislati ve termination:

(b) Consistent historical written documentation from the Federal Government

effectively stating that it no longer recognized a government-to-government

relationship with the tribe or its members or taking action to end the governmentto-government relationship: or

(c) Congressional restoration legislation that recognizes the existence of the previous

government-to-government relationship.

25 C'.F.R. § 292.9.

The Redding Ranchcria meets the requirement of Section 292.9(a) because pursuant to the

California Ranchcria Act. Congress authorized termination of tribal status of 4] California

Rancherias. Pub. I.. No.85-671. 72 Stat. 6]9 (1958), as amended by Pub. L.1\o. 88-419.

78 Slat. 390 (1964). Pursuant to this Act. the Tribe was terminated by notice published in the

Federal Register on June 13. 1962.

4
--, - - -----

3. Tbe Redding Rancberia bas been restored to Federal recognition.

In order for a tribe to qualify as having been restored to Federal recognition for purposes of

25 C.F.R. § 292.7. the tribe must also meet one of the criteria in 25 CF.R. § 292.10. Among the

listed criteria is itA Federal court determination in which the United Statesis a party or courtapproved settlement agreement entered into by the United States'" 25 C.F.R. § 292.1 O(c).

In 1979, the Redding Rancheria joined 17 other terminated California rancherias in a class action

lawsuit to restore the tribes' federally recognized status and the trust status of their tribal lands.

Set: llarthric:k v. United States. A settlement with the United States was achieved through a

stipulated agreement. and a judgment pursuant to that stipulation agreement was entered on

December 22. 1983. On June 11. 1984. pursuant to the agreed upon stipulation and resulting

judgment. the Secretary of the Interior restored to federally-recognized status the 17 R,mcherias.

including the Redding Rancheria. 49 Fed. Reg. 24084 (1984).

4. Conclusion: the Redding Rancheria is a "restored tribe."

Thc acquisition of land in 1922 for the benefit of the Tribe establishes that the Tribe t(>onerl)

had a government-to-government relationship with the United States: the government-togovernment relationship ended pursuant to the California Rancheria Act: and the govemment-togovernment relationship was "restored"' <md"reaffirmed" pursuant to the Ilardwick Stipulation.

rherelore. the Redding Rancheria Tribe satisfies the "rcstored tribe" requirements of the restored

lands exception.

Ha\'ing concluded that the Tribe is a restored tribe under I(IRA. the next question is whethcr thc

Parcels will be "land taken into trust as a part of the rcstoration of lands'"

B. The Parcels Cannot be ""RestoredLands."

Because the Tribe \:\,asrestored by a court-approved settlement agreement. the pertinent

regulations state:

If the tribe \vas restored by a Federal court detennination in which the

United States is a party or by a court-approvcd settlement agreement

entered into by the l 'nited States. it must meet the requirements of

Section 292.12.

25 C.l.R. § 292.II(c).

Section 292.12 sets forth three criteria that must be established in order for a parcel to qualify as

restored lands. These criteria may be summarized as requiring a modern connection. a historical

connection. and a temporal connection. Although I find that thc Parcels meet the modern and

historical connections. I have determined that the Parcels do not meet the temporal connection

requirement.

:5
1. Modern Connection

Subsection 292.12(a) provides:

The newly acquired lands must be located within the state or states where the tribe

is now located. as evidenced by the tribe's governmental presence and tribal

population. and the tribe must demonstrate one or more of the follO\ving modem

connections to the land:

(I) The land is within a reasonable commuting distance of the tribe's

existing reservation:

(2) If the tribe has no reseryation. the land is near where a significant

number of tribal members reside:

(3) The land is within a 25-mile mdius ofthe tribe's headquarters or

other tribal governmental facilities that have existed at that

location for at least 2 years at the time of the application for landinto-trust: or

(4) Other factors demonstrate the tribe' s current connection to the

land.

25 C.F.R. ~ 292.12(a).

lien:. the Parcels are located within California. the same State as th,' Tribe is located.

Furthermore. because the Parcels are only about 3.7 miles bv road from the Tribe's existing

reservation. II they are clearly within a re;sonable commuti~g distance. Therefore. the Par~cIs

meet the modem connection test.

Moreover. under Section 292.12(a)(3). a tribe can demonstrate a modem connection to a tract of

land if..thc land is within a 25-mile radius of the tribe's headquarters or other tribal gon:rnment

facilities:' Here. the Parcels are within 25 miles of the Tribe's headquarters. Therefore. there is

a second basis to conclude that the Parcels meet the modem connection test.

2. Significant Historical Connection

Next. Section 292.12(b) requires that "[t]he tribe must demonstmte a signiticant historical

connection to the land:' "Signiticant historical connection" is a defned term and means ..the

land is located within the boundaries of the tribe's last reservation under a ratified or unratified

treaty. or a tribe can demonstrate by historical documentation the existence of the tribe's villages.

burial grounds. occupancy or subsistence use in the vicinity of the land:' 25 C.F.R. ~292.2.

IIere the Tribe has demonstrated significant historical connections to the lands by providing

historical documentation of the existence of the rrihc's yillages. burial grounds. occupancy or

'I The regulations delinc "reservation" to include rancherias such as the Redding Ranchcria. 25 c.t. .R.§ 292.2.

6
subsistence use in the vicinity of the land. The record indicates that the Redding Rancheria. the

site of tribal residences and burial grounds from at least as carly as 1922. is less than 2 miles

from the subject Parcels. This is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Tribe's villages and

burial grounds are in the vicinity of the Parcels.

In short. the Tribe can show that it has a significant historical connection to the Parcels.

Therefore. the Redding Rancheria meets the requirements of § 292. I2(b).

3. Temporal Connection

The tribe must demonstrate a temporal connection between the date of the acquisition of the land

and the datc of the tribc's restoration. To demonstrate this connection. the tribc must be able to

shc)\\ that cither:

(I) The land is included in the tribc's first requcst for newly acquired lands since thc

tribe was restored to Federal recognition: or

(2) The tribe submitted an application to take thc land into trust \\'ithin 25 years after

the tribe was restored to Federal recognition and the tribe is not gaming on other

lands.

25 C.F.R. * 292.12(c).

In order to qualify under Section 292. I2(e)( 1). the Parcels must have been included in the

I'ribc's first request for nc\vly acquired lands since the Tribe was restored to Fcderal recognition.

The rcgulations define the tenn "ncwly acquired lands" to mean. "land that has been taken. or

will bc taken. in trust for the benefit of an Indian tribe by the United States after

O b 17 1(\ 88 "" ~ c. L'R ~ ') 9 "> ') II cto cr . 7 . _) ..r. . ~ _ -

I'he Tribe asserts that the tru5t-to-trust transfers giving the Tribe its first trust holdings in 1992

should not be considered newly acquired land. as the land was already held by the Secretary in

trust bdore October 17. 1988. 1do nnt have to reach that issue. As detailed in the Background

section. atter the Tribe received its trust-to-trust transfers. the Tribe made two requests for fee-totrust acquisitions that predate its request relating to the Strawberry Fields Property. Whether we

wnsider the Tribe's first request for nc\\ly acquired lands to be the trust-to-trust transfers or the

subsequent fcc-tn-trust rel\uests. it is evident that the subject Parcels were not included in either

of those requests. Therefore. the Parcels were not "included in the ITIribe's first request for

ne\\l} acquired lands sincc the ITJribe was restored to Federal recognition" and they cannot meet

the standard in 25 C.F.R. § 292.12(c)(1).

r0 meet the alternative standard under 25 C.F.R. § 292.12(c)(2). a tribe must demonstrate that it

submitted the land into tmst application \\ithin 25 years atier the tribe was restored to Federal

recognition and the tribe is not gaming on other lands.

I: Contrary to the Tribe's arguments. the definition of "newly acquired lands" is not limited to trust lands acquired

for gaming purposes or trust lands acquired olTreservation.

7
In this case, the Tribe's existing gaming facility precludes a finding under this section.

Conclusion

Because the Tribe cannot meet the standards articulated in Section 292. the Parcels are not

eligible for the restored lands exception. The Tribe has not claimed that the Parcels are eligible

for any other exception to IGRA's general prohibition against gaming on newly-acquired lands.

Therefore. it is my determination that the Parcels, if acquired in trust, are not currently eligible

for {(JRA's restored lands exception.

This decision does not preclude the Tribe from considering alternative non-gaming uses for the

land The limitation imposed by Congress on the use of the land should not be interpreted as a

prohibition against acquiring the land in trust for any other purposes. Therefore. if the Tribe

desires to acquire the land for some non-gaming purpose, please make the appropriate

adjustments to your application in accordance with the trust acquisition regulations at

25 ( .I .R. Part 151. Should the Tribe continue to pursue this site for gamingpurposes. an

app!Ication will need to be submitted pursuant to 2719(b)( 1)(A)- the two-part Secretarial

detcmlination section of IORA.

We regret that our decision could not be more favorable at this time.

Sincerely.

!t;Jc;. ~ ~ r.~,~o ~aWk

AssistantSecretary- Indian An'airs

8