C.F.R. » Title 25 » CHAPTER I—BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR › SUBCHAPTER N—ECONOMIC ENTERPRISES › PART 292—GAMING ON TRUST LANDS ACQUIRED AFTER OCTOBER 17, 1988 › Subpart C—Secretarial Determination and Governor's Concurrence

25 C.F.R. § 292.18

What information must an application contain on detrimental impacts to the surrounding community?

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

To satisfy the requirements of § 292.16(f), an application must contain the following information on detrimental impacts of the proposed gaming establishment:

(a) Information regarding environmental impacts and plans for mitigating adverse impacts, including an Environmental Assessment (EA), an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), or other information required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA);

(b) Anticipated impacts on the social structure, infrastructure, services, housing, community character, and land use patterns of the surrounding community;

(c) Anticipated impacts on the economic development, income, and employment of the surrounding community;

(d) Anticipated costs of impacts to the surrounding community and identification of sources of revenue to mitigate them;

(e) Anticipated cost, if any, to the surrounding community of treatment programs for compulsive gambling attributable to the proposed gaming establishment;

(f) If a nearby Indian tribe has a significant historical connection to the land, then the impact on that tribe's traditional cultural connection to the land; and

(g) Any other information that may provide a basis for a Secretarial Determination whether the proposed gaming establishment would or would not be detrimental to the surrounding community, including memoranda of understanding and inter-governmental agreements with affected local governments.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2016–2021 · leading case: Stand Up for California! v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 879 F.3d 1177 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Stand Up for California! v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 879 F.3d 1177 (D.C. Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “” 25 C.F.R. § 292.18 (g) (emphasis added); see also id.”
Kalispel Tribe of Indians v. Usdoi, 999 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2021). · cites it 2× “25 C.F.R. § 292.18 . IGRA’s multi-step process also requires the Secretary to confer with relevant parties, including nearby Indian tribes and public officials, share comments with the applicant tribe, and request comments from the community.”
Stand Up for California! v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior (D.D.C. 2016). · cites it 3× “See 25 C.F.R. § 292.18 (a), (d) (requiring an IGRA off-reservation gaming application to contain information regarding “plans for mitigating adverse impacts,” and “sources of revenue to mitigate” the “[a]nticipated costs of impacts to the surrounding community”); id.”
Stand Up for California! v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior (D.D.C. 2016). · cites it 3× “See 25 C.F.R. § 292.18 (a), (d) (requiring an IGRA off-reservation gaming application to contain information regarding “plans for mitigating adverse impacts,” and “sources of revenue to mitigate” the “[a]nticipated costs of impacts to the surrounding community”); id.”
Stand Up for California! v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior (E.D. Cal. 2021). “See 25 C.F.R. §§ 292.18 , 292.21(a); see also 25 C.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.