Hoopa Valley Indian Tribe v. Ryan

• Decision Date: 08 July 2005
• Docket Number: No. 03-16940.,03-16940.
• Citation: 415 F.3d 986
• Parties: HOOPA VALLEY INDIAN TRIBE, a federally recognized Indian tribe, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. RYAN, Northern Area Manager, Bureau of Reclamation; Gale A. Norton, Secretary of the Interior; United States of America, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

415 F.3d 986

HOOPA VALLEY INDIAN TRIBE, a federally recognized Indian tribe, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. RYAN, Northern Area Manager, Bureau of Reclamation; Gale A. Norton, Secretary of the Interior; United States of America, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 03-16940.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 14, 2005.

Filed July 8, 2005.

Kyme A.M. McGaw, Thomas P. Schlosser, Morisset, Schlosser, Jozwiak, & McGaw, Seattle, WA, for the appellant.

John S. Koppel, Attorney, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for the appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; Samuel Conti, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-02-00041-SC.

Before HUG, THOMPSON, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

HUG, Circuit Judge.

In an effort to address ongoing declines in salmon and steelhead populations in the Trinity River basin, the Bureau of Reclamation adopted a multifaceted restoration program. The Hoopa Valley Indian Tribe sought funding to implement many of the proposed restoration projects under the mandatory contracting provisions of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. After the Bureau refused to execute mandatory contracts for the Tribe's proposals, the Tribe brought suit. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court held that the programs at issue are not "for the benefit of Indians because of their status as Indians," and thus are not eligible for mandatory contracts. We have jurisdiction over the Tribe's appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

I

The Trinity River, originating in the coastal mountains of Northern California, flows through the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation before joining with the Klamath River and emptying into the Pacific Ocean. The Klamath-Trinity river system historically produced bountiful runs of salmon and steelhead. These fisheries played a central role in the livelihood and culture of the Hoopa Valley and Yurok Indian Tribes, as well as in the region's economy and way of life as a whole. Beginning in the latter half of the last century, however, the river was dammed and nearly all of its water was diverted to agricultural uses in California's Central Valley. The Trinity's legendary fishery, and those dependent on it, suffered dearly as a result.¹

In 1955, Congress authorized the Trinity River Division, a system of dams and diversions that ultimately diverted nearly ninety percent of the upper river's inflow to the Central Valley. The Division eliminated more than 100 miles of upstream spawning habitat, dramatically reduced downstream flows necessary to flush fine sediment from the gravel beds in which the fish spawned, contributed to channelization of the river, and otherwise degraded what habitat remained below the dams. By 1980, suitable habitat was all but eliminated from the river, and salmon and steelhead populations had plummeted by as much as eighty percent.

Congress has taken steps to mitigate the impact of the Trinity River Division. In the legislation first authorizing the Division, Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to "adopt appropriate measures to insure the preservation and propagation of fish and wildlife," including a minimum summer flow below the diversion of 150 cubic feet per second. Pub.L. No. 84-386, § 2, 69 Stat. 719 (1955). In 1980, Congress appropriated additional funds to remedy sediment problems originating in Grass Valley Creek, a tributary of the Trinity. Pub.L. No. 96-335, 94 Stat. 1062 (1980).

As the situation on the river grew more dire, Congress responded with the Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife Management Act, Pub.L. No. 98-541, 98 Stat. 2721 (1984) (hereafter "1984 Act"), which directed the Secretary to "formulate and implement" a restoration program "designed to restore the fish and wildlife populations in [the Trinity River] basin to the levels approximating those which existed immediately before" construction of the Division. Id. at § 2(a). This legislation also required the Secretary to enter into a memorandum of agreement with the Hoopa Valley Tribe in order to "facilitate the implementation of those activities . . . over which the Secretary does not have jurisdiction." Id. at § 2(b)(2). It also provided for appointment of a Hoopa Valley Tribe representative to the newly created Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife Task Force. Id. at § 3(a)(14).

In 1996, Congress reauthorized and expanded the 1984 Act, mandating that the success of restoration be measured in part "by the ability of dependent tribal, commercial, and sport fisheries to participate fully, through enhanced in-river and ocean harvest opportunities, in the benefits of restoration." Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife Management Reauthorization Act of 1995, Pub.L. No. 104-143, § 2(2), 110 Stat. 1338 (1996). Congress also added the long-term goal of "aid[-ing] in the resumption of commercial, including ocean harvest, and recreational fishing activities," and allowed representatives of the Yurok and Karuk Tribes to serve on the Task Force. Id. at §§ 2(3), 4(a)(3).

Although direct funding for activities under the 1984 and 1996 Acts expired on October 1, 1998, id. at § 5(a)(1), Congress separately continued to support Trinity River restoration through the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, Pub.L. No. 102-575, §§ 3401-3412, 106 Stat. 4600, 4706-31 (1992) (hereafter "CVPIA"). Specifically, "in order to meet Federal trust responsibilities to protect the fishery resources of the Hoopa Valley Tribe, and to meet the fishery restoration goals" of the 1984 Act, Congress directed the Secretary to provide a minimum instream release of water into the Trinity River and to consult with the Hoopa Valley Tribe in completing a "Trinity River Flow Evaluation Study" that could lead to further increases in the minimum flow. Id. at § 3406(b)(23), 106 Stat. 4720-21.

Following completion of this study, the Department of the Interior finalized its Trinity River Mainstream Restoration Program and issued a Record of Decision. The Record of Decision recommended variable increases in the amount of water released into the river, depending on water availability during any given year. The document also recommended other restoration measures, including mechanical channel rehabilitation, sediment management and watershed restoration programs, adaptive management, and monitoring. The Department also reaffirmed that congressional mandates, grounded in the federal government's trust responsibilities to the Hoopa Valley and Yurok Tribes, required restoration of Trinity River salmon and steelhead populations to levels existing before the dams were built.

The Hoopa Valley Tribe first proposed a mandatory "self-determination contract," under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (hereafter "ISDEAA"), for Trinity River restoration activities in August, 1999. The Bureau of Reclamation denied the Tribe's proposal, finding that Trinity River restoration was a national program designed to benefit the public as a whole rather than the Tribe in particular. The Tribe appealed to the Interior Board of Indian Appeals, which affirmed the Bureau's decision in part. The Administrative Law Judge found that the particular programs, functions, services, and activities related to the Trinity Flow Study and the Record of Decision were eligible for a self-determination contract because these activities were directly connected to tribal authority granted under the CVPIA. The judge also concluded, however, that the other proposed restoration projects could not be funded under self-determination contracts because they were designed to benefit the public as a whole rather than "Indians because of their status as Indians."

The Tribe again sought mandatory contracts for fiscal year 2002 covering nineteen restoration activities, many of which involved monitoring, channel rehabilitation, and fishery enhancement activities affecting habitat throughout the Trinity River system. The Bureau again denied the Tribe's request, citing the reasoning in the Administrative Law Judge's decision. The Tribe responded with another proposed scope of work for mandatory contracts, this time encompassing twenty-six restoration activities. The Bureau, once again employing the Administrative Law Judge's criteria, found that only two of the proposed activities (those related to the Trinity Flow Study process) fell within the mandatory contracting provisions of ISDEAA. Disagreeing with the Bureau's analysis, the Tribe submitted a "last best offer" covering nineteen activities. The Bureau again determined that most of the activities were not eligible for mandatory self-determination contracts, but offered to negotiate discretionary funding for those activities under a separate ISDEAA provision.

The Tribe then filed suit in the district court challenging the Bureau's interpretation of ISDEAA. In paragraph 41 of its complaint, the Tribe specified five activities for which it sought mandatory contracts: (A) basic sediment transport monitoring; (B) channel rehabilitation site physical monitoring; (C) rehabilitation site biological monitoring; (D) main-stem outmigrant monitoring; and (E) participation in the Channel Restoration Subcommittee. The Tribe also sought a declaratory judgment that all other programs, services, functions, and activities necessary to implement the Record of Decision were eligible for mandatory self-determination contracts. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court held that restoration activities designed to benefit the Trinity River and its users as a whole, rather than the Tribe in particular, did not fall within ISDEAA's mandatory contracting provisions. The Tribe timely appealed.

II

We review the district court's decision on cross-motions for summary judgment de novo. See United States v. City of Tacoma, 332 F.3d 574, 578 (9th Cir.2003).

III

We...