Record of Decision Trust Acq uisition of, and Reservation Proclamation for the 151.87-acre Cowlitz Parcel in Clark County, Washington, fo r the Cowlitz Indian Tribe U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs April 2013 u.s. Department of the Interior Agency: Bureau of [ndian Affairs Action: Record of Decision for the Trust Acquisition of) and Reservation Proclamation for, the 151.87-acre La Center Interchange Site in Clark County, Washington, for the Cowlitz Indian Tribe. Summary: On January 4, 2002, the Cowlitz Indian Tribe (Cowlitz Indian Tribe, Cowlitz Tribe, or Tribe) was federally recognized through the Bureau or Indian Affairs's (BIA) administrative acknowledgment process. On that same date, the Tribe, which is landless, submitted a fee-to-bust application to the BIA, requesting that the Department of the Interior (Department) accept trust title to land totaling 151.87 acres in Clark County, Washington (the Cowlitz Parcel). The Tribe requested that the Cowlitz Parcel be proclaimed its "initial reservation," and plans to construct tribal govenunent buildings, tribal elder housing, a tribal cultural center, a casino-resort complex, parking facilities, a recreational vehicle park, and a wastewater treatment plant. The Proposed Action (the Tlibe's proposed trust acquisition and reservation proclamation) was analyzed as Alternative A in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared pursuant to the Natjonal Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), under the direction and supervision of the BJA Northwest Regional Office. The Draft EIS was issued for public review and comment on April) 2, 2006. After an extended comment period, two public hearings, and consideration and incorporation of comments received on the Draft EIS, BlA issued the final EIS on May 30, 2008. The Draft and Final E1S considered a reasonable range of alternatives that would meet the purpose and need for the proposal, and analyzed the potential effects of those alternatives, as well as feasible mitigation measures. On December 17, 2010, the Department of the [nterior issued a Record of Decision (ROD) announcing that the action to be implemented was the Preferred Alternative (Alternative A in the FEIS), which included the acquisition in trust of the 151.87-acre Cowlitz Parcel, the proclamation of the parcel as the Cowlitz Indian Tribe's reservation. and the construction of tribal government headquarters, tribal eider housing, a tribal cultural center, and a gaming-resort complex including a 134,150 square foot casino, 250-room hotel, recreational vehicle park, parking facilities, and a wastewater treatment plant. Notice of that decision was published in the Federal Register on January 4, 2011) 76 Fed Reg. 377 (2011). That decision wac; challenged in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. On March 13, 2013, the district court remanded the matter to the Department with instructions to rescind the 2010 ROD, and ordered the Department to issue a new ROD within sixty (60) days of the date of the decision, unless good calise was shown why the Department could not do so. With the issuance of this new ROD, the Department rescinds the 2010 ROD and announces that the action to be implemented is the Preferred Alternative (Alternative A in the FEIS), which includes acquisition in trust of the 151.87- acre Cowlitz Parcel, proclamation of the parcel as the Cowlitz Indian Tribe's reservation, and construction of tribal government headquarters, tribal elder housing, a tribal cultural center and a gaming-resort complex including a 134,150 square foot casino, 250-room hotel, recreational vehicle park, parking facilities, and a wastewater treatment plant. The Department has determined that this Preferred Alternative will best meet the purpose and need for the Proposed Action, in promoting the long-term economic self-sufficiency, self­ determination and self-governance of the Cowlitz Tribe. Implementing this action will provide the Tribe with a 10ng-defelTed reservation land base and the best opportunity for attracting and maintaining a signiflcant, stable, long-term source of governmental revenue, and accordingly, the best prospects for maintaining and expanding tribal governmental programs to provide a wide range of health, education, housing, social, cultural, envirorunental and other programs, as well as employment and career development opportunities for its members. The Department has considered potential effects to the environment, including potential impacts to local governments and other tribes, has adopted all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm, and has determined that potentially significant effects will be adequately addressed by these mitigation measures, as described in this ROD and in the Final EIS Evaluation of Adequacy. The Department also has determined that the Cowlitz Parcel is eligible for gaming because it qualifies as the Tribe's "initial reservation" under Section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The decision is based on thorough review and consideration of the Tribe' s fee­ to-trust applicaTion, the Tribe's request for a reservation proclamation, and materials submitted therewith; the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing acquisition of trust title to land, issuance of reservation proclamations, and eligibility of land for gaming; the Draft EIS~ the Final EIS; the Final EIS Evaluation of Adequacy; the administrative record; and comments received from the public; federal, state and local governmental agencies; and potentially affected Indian tribes. For Further Information Contact: Dr. BJ. Howerton, M.B.A. Environmental Protection Specialist Bureau of Indian Affairs Northwest Region OHice 911 NE 11 th Avenue Portland, OR 97232 Table of Contents RECORD OF DECISION .......................................................................................................................... 1 TRUST ACQUISITION OF, AND RESERVATION PROCLAMATION FOR THE 151.87-ACRE COWLITZ PARCEL IN CLARK COUNTY, WASIDNGTON, FOR THE COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Summary .... ...................... .. ........... ................ ... ............. ........................... ... ................. ........ I 1.2 Description of the Proposed Action .. ............ .... .............. .......... ................ ..... ...................... I 1.3 Purpose and Need .... .. ... .. .. ... .. ....... .. .......... .. .......... .... ................ ...... .. .. ............. ...... ..... ........ .. 2 1.4 Authorities ....... ... .. ........ .. ........ .. ....... .. .... ...................... ... ....... .. .......................... ......... .......... 3 1.5 Procedural Background .... ... ............ ................ ............ ...... ...... ... ... .............. .. ... ..... .. .. .. ......... 3 2.0 ANALYSIS OF AL TERNA TlVES ..................................................................................... ......... 5 2. J AltematiYe Screening Process ....... .. ........................... .... ........... .. .............. .. ............ ..... ........ 5 2 .1.1 Non-Casino Alternatives .. ... ..... .. ...... ... .. ........................ .... .. ............ ....... .. .... ... ........ 6 2.1.2 Alternative Casino Sites .......... ... ............. ...... ..... ....... ...................... .. .... .................. 6 2.2 Reasonable Alternatives Considered in Delail .............. ............ .. .. .. .......... .. ........... ... .. ...... ... 7 2.2 .t Alternative A - Preferred Casino-Resort Project (Proposed Action) .... .. ................ 7 2.2.2 Alternative B - Preferred Project Without Rerouting NW 3) 91h Street .. ....... ....... 10 2.2.3 Alternative C - Reduced Intensity ...................... .. .. .......................... .. ........... .. ...... 1 J 2.2.4 Alternative D - Business Park ... ....... .. ... .. ........ .. .. ... .. .. ................. .... ...................... 11 2.2.5 Alternative E - Ridgefield Interchange Site ......... ..... .............. .. ........ .... .. .... .... ...... t2 2.2.6 Alternative F - No-Action Alternative ... .. ..................................... .... .. .. .. .... .. ........ ) 3 3.0 ENVIRONMENT IMPACTS AND PUBLIC COMMENTS .................................................. 14 3.1 Environmentaiimpacts Identified in Final EJS ........... .. .................. ................................... : 4 3.1.1 Geology and Soils ... .. ... ................... .. .... .............. .. .......... .. ... .............. ............ .. ...... 14 3.1.2 Water Resources .... ... .. ... .. .... .... ......... .. ... ... .. .. .... .. ... .. ..... .... ... .. ... ..... .. .. .............. ... ... 15 3.1.3 Air Quality ... .... ............. .. ............ ....... .. .. ... ................. ......................... ...... .. ........... 16 3.1 .4 Biological Resources .. ............. .. ...... .. .................. .. ............ ................. ................... 17 3.1.5 Culnrral Resources .... .... ............ .. ............ .. .. .. ........ .... .... ................ .. ..... .. .. .. ...... ...... 18 3.1.6 Socioeconomic Conditions and Environmental Justice .. ..... ........ .... .............. ....... 18 3.1.7 Transportation/Circulation ....... .. .................... .. .. ... .......................... .. .............. ...... 19 3.1.8 Land Use ...................... .. ... .. .... .. ....... .. ...