Citizens for a Better Way v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior

• Decision Date: 23 September 2015
• Docket Number: No. 2:12-cv-3021-TLN-AC,2:12-cv-3021-TLN-AC
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
• Parties: CITIZENS FOR A BETTER WAY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, et al., Defendants.

CITIZENS FOR A BETTER WAY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, et al., Defendants.

No. 2:12-cv-3021-TLN-AC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

September 23, 2015

ORDER

This matter is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff United Auburn Indian Community's ("Plaintiff UAIC") Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 98), Plaintiff Citizens for a Better Way's et al. ("Plaintiff Citizens")¹ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 99), Plaintiff Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community's ("Plaintiff Colusa") Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 102), Defendants'² Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 116), and Defendant Estom Yumeka Maidu Tribe of the Enterprise Rancheria's ("Defendant Enterprise") Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 119).

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This case involves the interrelated actions that Defendants took in connection with aproposed gaming facility and hotel fee-to-trust acquisition project. (ECF No. 98-1 at 1.) The Bureau of Indian Affairs ("BIA") is in charge of reviewing and approving Tribal applications pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act ("IRA"). In 2002, Defendant Enterprise submitted an application to the BIA requesting that the Department of the Interior ("DOI") accept trust title to a piece of land in Yuba County. (EN_AR_NEW_0030167.) Defendant Enterprise plans to build a gaming facility, hotel, and parking facilities on this land in Yuba County ("Yuba Site"). (EN_AR_NEW_0030167.) The proposed trust acquisition was analyzed in an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") prepared under the direction and supervision of the BIA. (EN_AR_NEW_0030167). The BIA analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the proposed trust acquisition. (EN_AR_NEW_0030171.) The Draft EIS was issued for public review and comments on March 21, 2008. (EN_AR_NEW_0030171.) After the comment period, a public hearing, and consideration and incorporation of comments received, the BIA issued the Final EIS ("FEIS") on August 6, 2010. (EN_AR_NEW_0030171.) The BIA issued a Record of Decision ("ROD") in November 2012 finding that a gaming establishment on the Yuba Site would be in the best interest of Enterprise and its members and would not be detrimental to the surrounding community. (ECF No. 98-1 at 4, EN_AR_NEW_0030166.)

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Colusa filed its complaint in this Court on December 14, 2012. (ECF No. 1 in Case No. 12-1604). On December 12, 2012, Plaintiff UAIC filed suit in the District of Columbia (D.C. No. 1:12-cv-1988); on December 20, 2012, three local advocacy groups, five local residents, and a local restaurant ( "Plaintiff Citizens") did likewise (D.C. No. 1:12-cv-2052). The UAIC and Citizens cases were consolidated and transferred to this Court. On January 23, Citizens/UAIC was consolidated with Colusa as Case No. 2:12-cv-3021. (ECF No. 40.) Motions for temporary restraining orders (and, in Colusa's case, for mandamus) were all denied by order dated January 30, 2013. (ECF No. 57.) The Yuba Site was taken into trust by the United States on May 15, 2013.

Plaintiff UAIC, Plaintiff Citizens and Plaintiff Colusa each filed their own Motion for Summary Judgment on June 24, 2014. (ECF No. 98, 99, 102.) On July 24, 2014, Defendantsfiled a Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 116.) Defendants Enterprise also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 119.)

II. STANDARD OF LAW

Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings and the record demonstrate that "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In this case, the Court's review of Plaintiffs' National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act ("IGRA") and the Indian Reorganization Act ("IRA") claims is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). "). See Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n, 497 U.S. 871, 882-83 (1990); ONRC Action v. BLM, 150 F.3d 1132, 1135 (9th Cir. 1998) (NEPA); Hein v. Capitan Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians, 201 F.3d 1256, 1260 (9th Cir. 2000) (IGRA); McAlpine v. United States, 112 F.3d 1429, 1435 (10th Cir. 1997) (IRA). Under the APA, a court must set aside any agency action that is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law" or taken "without observance of procedure required by law." 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). "[T]he function of the district court is to determine whether or not as a matter of law the evidence in the administrative record permitted the agency to make the decision it did." Occidental Engineering Co. v. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 766, 769 (9th Cir. 1985). "[S]ummary judgment is an appropriate mechanism for deciding the legal question of whether the agency could reasonably have found the facts as it did." Id. at 770. The standard is '"highly deferential, presuming the agency action to be valid and affirming the agency action if a reasonable basis exists for its decision.'" Nw. Ecosystem Alliance v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv, 475 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Independent Acceptance Co. v. California, 204 F.3d 1247, 1251 (9th Cir. 2000).

III. ANALYSIS

A. National Environmental Policy Act Claim

Plaintiff UAIC, Plaintiff Colusa and Plaintiff Citizens all allege that BIA violated the National Environmental Protection Act ("NEPA"). The two objectives of this statute include: (1) placing upon an agency the obligation to consider every significant aspect of the environmental impact of a proposed action; and (2) ensuring that the agency will inform the public that it hasconsidered environmental concerns in its decision-making. Baltimore Gas & Elec., Co. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 462 U.S. 87, 97 (1983). Judicial review of an agency's EIS "under NEPA is extremely limited." Nat'l Parks & Conservation Ass'n v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., 222 F.3d 677, 680 (9th Cir. 2000). "The reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency concerning the wisdom or prudence of a proposed action." Oregon Envtl. Council v. Kunzman, 817 F.2d 484, 492 (9th Cir. 1987).

In the Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff UAIC claims that Defendants violated NEPA by: (1) narrowing the purpose of the proposed action in order to dismiss viable alternatives; (2) failing to take a "hard look" at UAIC's socioeconomic interests and other interests; and (3) violated NEPA's conflict-of-interest provisions by giving undue weight to one of Enterprise's consultants. (ECF No. 98-1 at 5.) Both Plaintiff Citizens and Plaintiff Colusa further allege that Defendants violated NEPA by not considering an adequate number of alternatives. (ECF No. 99, ECF No. 102.) Finally, Plaintiff Colusa contends that the agency failed to take a "hard look" at the environmental impacts of the proposed casino. (ECF No. 102.) The Court will address each argument below.

1. Statement of the Purpose and Need of the Proposed Action

Under NEPA, an agency must state the purpose and need of the proposal it is evaluating. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.13. Agencies enjoy "considerable discretion" to define the purpose and need of a project. Friends of Southeast's Future v. Morrison, 153 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 1998). However, in doing so "an agency cannot define its objectives in unreasonably narrow terms." City of Carmel-By-The-Sea v. United States Dep't. of Transp., 123 F.3d 1142, 1155 (9th Cir. 1997). "An agency may not define the objectives of its action in terms so unreasonably narrow that only one alternative from among the environmentally benign ones in the agency's power would accomplish the goals of the agency's action, and the EIS would become a foreordained formality." Friends, 153 F.3d at 1066 (quoting Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey, 938 F.2d 190, 196 (D.C.Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 994 (1991)) (correction in original). Therefore, in evaluating an agency's statement of purpose, courts apply a reasonableness standard and consider the statutory context of the federal action at issue. League of Wilderness Defendersv. U.S. Forest Serv., 689 F.3d 1060, 1070 (9th Cir. 2012.)

Here, the Final Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS") defines BIA's purpose for acquiring the land in trust as follows:

• Restoring trust land to the Tribe in an amount equal to the amount of land previously lost as a result of federal action.

• Provide employment opportunities for tribal members.

• Improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing a new revenue source that could be utilized to build a strong tribal government, improve existing tribal housing, provide new tribal housing, fund a variety of social, governmental, administrative, educational, health, and welfare services to improve the quality of life of tribal members, and to provide capital for other economic development and investment opportunities.

• Allow Tribal members to become economically self-sufficient, thereby eventually removing Tribal members from public-assistance programs.

• Fund local governmental agencies, programs and services.

• Make donations to charitable organizations and governmental operations.

• Effectuate the Congressional purposes set out in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA).

(EN_AR_NEW_0023219).

Plaintiff UAIC claims that Defendants defined the purpose and need of Enterprise's proposal so narrowly as to preclude reasonable alternatives. (ECF No. 98-1 at 5-7.) Plaintiff UAIC further asserts that the proposal merely focuses on Enterprise's private interests: restoring trust land to Enterprise, permitting Enterprise to conduct Class III gaming, and increasing Enterprise's economic development potential. (ECF No. 98-1.) Although the Defendants considered five purported alternatives, Plaintiff UAIC claims that only the Yuba Site fulfilled all the purposes. (ECF No. 98-1.) Plaintiff UAIC further contends that one of these five alternatives was not even a true alternative but rather was doomed from the start.³ (ECF No. 98-1.) Plaintiff...