10.0 SIGNATURE

By my signature, I indicate my decision to implement the Preferred Alternative and
approve the GMA.

hb ht fig yr

fonddev O. Chaudhur” Date
airman
National Indian Gaming Commission

14


ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1 - Draft Environmental Impact Statement (April 2006).
Attachment 2 - Final Environmental Impact Statement (May 2008).

Attachment 3 - Final EIS Evaluation of Adequacy (April 11, 2013), including supplemental
comments.

Attachment 4 — Letter from Betty Sue Morris, Chair, Clark County Commission, to Carl
Artman, Assistant Secretary, DOI-BIA (Feb. 5, 2008).

Attachment 5 - Letter from Donald C. Baur, Esq. Perkins Coie, to Jonodev O. Chaudhuri,
Chairman, NIGC, with attachments (March 2, 2017).

Attachment 6 - Letter from William Iyall, Chairman, Cowlitz Indian Tribe, to Jonodev O.
Chaudhuri, Chairman, NIGC, with attachments (March 30, 2017).

Attachment 7 — Letter from Peter Schultz, Project Manager, Salishan-Mohegan, LLC, to Yvonne
Lee, Director of Finance, NIGC (April 12, 2017).

Attachment 8 — Letter from Dustin Day, Senior Scientist, BergerABAM, to Peter J. Schultz,
Project Manager, Salishan-Mohegan, LLC (April 13, 2017).

Attachment 9 - E-mail from David Rome, VP, Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority, to Esther
Dittler, Staff Attorney, NIGC (April 25, 2017), with Clark County press release
(April 8, 2009); Clark County Resolution No. 2004-03-02, A resolution approving
a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) between Clark County and the
Cowlitz Indian Tribe (March 2, 2004); and, Memorandum of Understanding
(“MOU”) between Clark County and the Cowlitz Indian Tribe with Exhibits
(March 2, 2004).


4.2. Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action

As indicated above, I am adopting the BIA FEIS, supplemented by the Final EIS
Evaluation of Adequacy, which analyzed the environmental impacts of approval of the GMA,
including all related activities and uses that are reasonably foreseeable connected to the Proposed
Action within the context of NEPA. I have assessed the analysis of the environmental
consequences as outline in Section 4 of the BIA FEIS and agree that it provides a complete
description of the potential environmental consequences of the Proposed Action and the No
Action Alternative. The environmental consequences described in Section 4 of the BIA FEIS and
in the Final EIS Evaluation of Adequacy are incorporated herein.

As set forth in the BIA FEIS, the development alternatives when added to past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not result in significant cumulative impacts. In
the Tribe’s EPHS Ordinance, the Tribe has agreed to payments in lieu of taxes and
implementation of road improvements that would address potential cumulative impacts
associated with traffic and public services. Implementation of interchange improvements
recommended in the Draft Interchange Justification Report prepared in coordination with
Washington State DOT and Federal Highway Administration would reduce potential cumulative
traffic impacts to less than significant. Water quality, biological resources, and cultural resources
are afforded substantial protection under Federal, state, and local regulations that would avoid
potential cumulative effects associated with these resources. Through compliance with
applicable strategies developed by the Washington Climate Advisory Team to meet emission
reduction targets, the project’s contribution to cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases would
be less than significant thereby supporting the State’s efforts to significantly reduce its
cumulative contribution to global climate change. Potential cumulative effects associated with
land use and aesthetics would be avoided as future developments would be required to comply
with local land use regulations. Therefore, with incorporation of mitigation measures, as set forth
in the FEIS, the Proposed Action would not result in cumulatively considerable environmental
issues.

5.0. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Section 2 of the FEIS considered a range of alternatives. At the time the 2013 ROD was
issued, the DOI found that either the Reduced Intensity Alternative (Alternative C) or the No
Action Alternative (Alternative F) would result in the fewest effects to the biological and
physical environment. The DOI noted that because it could not predict with certainty the exact
type of development that would occur under the No Action Alternative, it was difficult to assess
whether it would result in similar, less, or greater impacts to the natural and human environment
than the Proposed Action. Nevertheless, the No Action Alternative was assumed to have less
impact, and, therefore, would be environmentally preferred.

10


uncertainty regarding the final legal status of the 2004 Memorandum of Understanding between
the Tribe and Clark County, the Tribe enacted two ordinances to serve as enforceable legal
mechanisms that would ensure the same mitigation of impacts that was provided in the MOU. In
April 2009, after the publication of the 2008 FEIS, the Tribe and Clark County entered into a
new agreement to rescind the 2004 MOU and to rely instead on the Tribe’s Environment, Public
Heath, and Safety Ordinance (EPHS Ordinance), which was incorporated into the Tribe’s
Gaming Ordinance and approved by the NIGC." The rescission agreement confirmed the Tribe’s
limited waiver of sovereign immunity that allows Clark County to enforce the Tribe’s
obligations. As a result, the MOU is no longer in effect, the lawsuit challenging the MOU has
been dismissed, and the mitigation of impacts is provided for in the Tribal ordinances.

On April 22, 2013, the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs rescinded the 2010 ROD
and issued a new ROD (2013 ROD) announcing the decision to acquire the Cowlitz Parcel into
trust for the Cowlitz Indian Tribe and issue a reservation proclamation.> The land was accepted
by the United States in trust for the Tribe on March 9, 2015, and a reservation proclamation was
issued on November 6, 2015.°

The Tribe has since developed the site and constructed the gaming facility. The decision
to construct a gaming facility was an independent determination made by the Tribe and was not
subject to review by the NIGC. The Tribe opened the gaming facility to the public on April 24,
2017, and is presently managing the facility itself.

2.0 ADOPTION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

2.1 Adoption of Final Environmental Impact Statement

The regulations promulgated to implement NEPA provide that a cooperating agency may
adopt without recirculating the Environmental Impact Statement of a Lead Agency when, after
an independent review of the statement, the Cooperating Agency concludes that its comments
and suggestions have been satisfied.’ Based upon my independent review of the FEIS, I have
concluded that the NIGC’s comments and suggestions, if any, have been satisfied and I adopt the
FEIS and the associated record to support my decision.

The FEIS and the supporting record are available online at http://www.cowlitzeis.com.

‘ Letter from Philip N. Hogan, Chairman, NIGC to William Iyall, Tribal Council Chair, Cowlitz Indian Tribe (Jan.
8, 2008).

578 Fed, Reg. 26802 (May 8, 2013).

© 80 Fed. Reg. 70250 (Nov. 13, 2015).

740 CER. § 1506.3.


1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.1 History of Trust Acquisition, Reservation Proclamation, and Gaming Facility

On January 4, 2002, the Cowlitz Indian Tribe (Tribe) was federally recognized through
the Bureau of Indian Affair’s (BIA) administrative acknowledgement process. On the same date,
the Tribe, which was landless, submitted a fee-to-trust application to the BIA, requesting that the
Department of the Interior accept trust title to land totaling 151.87 acres (Cowlitz Parcel) in
Clark County, Washington. The Tribe requested that the Cowlitz Parcel be proclaimed its “initial
reservation,” and planned to construct Tribal government 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 trust acquisition and reservation proclamation for the Cowlitz Parcel was
analyzed in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared by the BIA. The Proposed
Action, was analyzed in the FEIS as Alternative A — Preferred Casino-Resort Project, included
(1) placing 8 parcels totaling approximately 151.87 acres into Federal trust status for the benefit
of the Tribe; (2) issuance of a reservation proclamation by the Department of the Interior (DOI);
(3) approval of a gaming development and management contract; and (4) development of a
casino-resort, tribal headquarters, tribal elder housing, a tribal cultural center, and other ancillary
facilities on the site.

On December 17, 2010, the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs issued a Record of
Decision (ROD) announcing a final determination to acquire the Cowlitz Parcel into trust and to
proclaim the land to be the Cowlitz Indian Tribe’s reservation in Clark County, Washington.?
That decision was challenged in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. On
March 13, 2013, the district court remanded the matter to DOI with instructions to rescind the
2010 ROD, and ordered the DOI to issue a new ROD unless good cause was shown why the DOI
could not.

The BIA undertook a review of the Final EIS and completed a Final EIS Evaluation of
Adequacy on April 11, 2013, to determine if a supplemental EIS was required pursuant to
NEPA. Based on the findings in the Evaluation of Adequacy, the DOI determined that the
conclusions and mitigation measures set forth in the Final EIS remained applicable to the Tribe’s
proposed project and that no supplement was required.

The Final EIS Evaluation of Adequacy noted that no changes to the footprint and scope
of the Proposed Project have occurred since the 2008 FEIS and 2010 ROD. The Tribe has
certified that the project as developed remains within the scope set forth in the FEIS. With
respect to enforceability of certain mitigation measures, the evaluation explained that the Tribe
and Clark County had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in 2004 that
addressed mitigation efforts, but that the MOU was challenged by a third-party. Due to the

376 Fed. Reg, 377 (Jan. 4, 2011).


selection of financial institutions for accounts; engagement of accountants, attorneys, and other
professionals; advertisement, marketing, and promotion of the facility; preparation of the annual
business plan and budgets; and all necessary ancillary responsibilities.

3.2. Purpose and Need of the Proposed Action

The purpose and need for implementing the GMA with Salishan-Mohegan is to provide
for a level of professional management of the gaming facility that will ultimately improve the
long-term economic condition of the Tribe and its members through the development of stable,
sustainable sources of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the gaming facility
will promote tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and a strong tribal government,
including supporting social, governmental, and educational programs for Tribal members, all as
Congress intended in enacting the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

4.0 | ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4.1 Environmental Impacts Identified in the FEIS

A number of specific issues were raised during the EIS scoping process and comment
periods. Each of the alternatives were considered in the FEIS and evaluated. The categories of
the most substantive issues include:

e Geological and Soils;

e Water Resources;

Air Quality;

Biological Resources;

Cultural and Paleontological Resources;
Socioeconomic Conditions;
Transportation/Circulation;

Land Use;

Public Services;

Noise;

Hazardous Materials;

Aesthetics;

e Indirect and Growth Inducing Effects; and
e Cumulative Effects.

Analyses of these and other environmental parameters were also considered and analyzed
within the FEIS.


ALI
yon No
r 4

2 4
5 é
ty, 7” eo
S com

National Indian Gaming Commission

National Environmental Policy Act Record of Decision

Adoption of the United State Bureau of Indian Affairs Final Environmental Impact
Statement

and

Selection of Preferred Alternative: Approval of Gaming Management Agreement between
the Cowlitz Indian Tribe, the Cowlitz Tribal Gaming Authority and Salishan-Mohegan,
LLC for Operation and Management of a Gaming Facility Previously Constructed on the
Cowlitz Indian Tribe’s Reservation in Clark County, Washington.

May 19, 2017


though facility management by the Tribe. Accordingly, approval of the GMA with Salishan-
Mohegan best meets the purpose and need of the Proposed Action.

7.0 MITIGATION MEASURES

All mitigation measures associated were analyzed in the FEIS and Final EIS Evaluation
of Adequacy. The Tribe is required to implement the enforceable mitigation measures set forth in
Section 6 of the FEIS.

8.0 COMMENTS

In accordance with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 1503.4, all comments regarding the
EIS Scoping Process, DEIS, and FEIS'’ were considered and responses prepared. All comments
and the responses to those comments are attached to the FEIS in accordance with 40 C.F.R.
§ 1503.4(b).

The NIGC, as a cooperating agency, adopted the EIS without recirculating the
document.’ Although the NIGC was not required to solicit and consider comments, the NIGC
has reviewed and considered comments received while review of the Proposed Action was
pending. The NIGC received one letter with comments regarding the then pending litigation
regarding the underlying trust acquisition and comments regarding disposal of waste water. The
commenter referred to a decision issued by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
affirming a District Court decision that held: that the Secretary of the Interior reasonably
interpreted and applied the Indian Reorganization Act! to conclude that the Cowlitz are a
“recognized Indian tribe now under Federal jurisdiction”; found the Secretary reasonably
determined that the Cowlitz Tribe meets IGRA’s “initial-reservation” exception;'” and rejected
other claims brought under the IRA and NEPA. The comment asserted that the Tribe could not
commence gaming until the litigation was resolved. We note that the Supreme Court denied the
petition for a writ of certiorari on April 3, 2017, which resolved the litigation favorably to the
Tribe.'®

The commenter also raised concerns regarding disposal of wastewater into an
underground injection control (UIC) system, which it acknowledges falls under the jurisdiction
of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). We note that the FEIS and the
Final EIS Evaluation of Adequacy contemplated that wastewater would be treated and
discharged to surface water, but that the Tribe decided to dispose of treated wastewater in Class
V UIC wells. The EPA responded to this concern finding that the request to discharge in UIC

* Notice of Availability was published in the Federal Register. 73 Fed. Reg. 31143 (May 30, 2008)

4 40 CER. § 1506.3(c).

* 95 U.S.C. § 461 et seq.

95 U.S.C. § 479

795 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq.

*° Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Community of Oregon v. Jewell (D.C. Cir, 2016), cert. denied.

12


The DOI determined that Alternative A was the agency’s Preferred Alternative because it
meets the purpose and need for the proposed actions. BIA’s mission is to enhance the quality of
life and to promote economic opportunity in balance with meeting the responsibility to protect
and improve the trust resources of Indian tribes. While Alternative A would have slightly greater
environmental impacts than either of the environmentally preferred alternatives, those
alternatives do not meet the purpose and need for the Proposed Action, and the environmental
impacts of the Preferred Alternative are adequately addressed by the mitigation measures
adopted in the 2013 ROD. Approval of the GMA is within the Alternative selected by the DOI
and the approval of the GMA does not alter the effects as discussed in the FEIS.

As explained above, the Tribe has already constructed the gaming facility and it is
presently open to the public. Approval of the GMA, permits Salishan-Mohegan to manage the
Tribe’s gaming facility. No new temporary or permanent structures beyond those identified in
the DEIS and FEIS will be erected as part of the Proposed Action. Moreover, approval of the
GMA does not alter the external look or scope of the gaming facility, and does not change the
operational baselines as reviewed and discussed within the FEIS. The GMA is merely a contract
to manage the operations of the existing gaming facility to maximize the monetary benefit to the
Tribe. Consequently, approval of the GMA would not result in environmental effects greater
than those associated with disapproval. The FEIS demonstrates that with or without the Proposed
Action, each of the factors analyzed will have a substantially similar impact on the environment.
Therefore, at this time, approval and implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in
any additional environmental impacts compared to disapproval of the GMA, as such both are
considered environmentally preferable alternative.”

6.0 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

As discussed herein, the purpose and need for the Proposed Action is to provide the Tribe
with the opportunity to develop and maintain a source of revenue sufficient to allow it to meet its
governmental needs and the needs of its tribal members in accordance with Federal policies
enunciated in IGRA, the IRA, and related laws and regulations. As discussed above, the approval
of the management contract is the best option to maximize the Tribe’s profits to allow it to meet
its obligations and provides benefits to its tribal members. Salishan-Mohegan can immediately
apply its experience to maximize operational efficiencies at the gaming facility. Those increased
efficiencies will result in greater initial net profits and revenues to the Tribe than those associated
with the No Action Alternative.

For the reasons stated above, the NIGC Chair finds that the Proposed Action is the
Preferred Alternative because the revenue realized by the Tribe through Salishan-Mohegan’s
management of the gaming facility would be substantially greater than the revenue realized

” 40 CER. § 1505.2.
11


2.2 Public Involvement

Scoping of the development of the EIS began with the publication of the BIA Notice of
Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register. During scoping, the BIA invited the participation of
Federal, State, and local agencies, Native American tribes, environmental groups, citizens, and
other interested parties to assist in determining the scope and significant issues to be evaluated in
the EIS. In December 2004, a scoping meeting was held in Vancouver, Washington to request
input from the public on concerns regarding the proposed actions, as well as to gather
information and knowledge of issues relevant to analyzing the environmental impacts associated
with the Proposed Action. The comment period was open until December 13, 2004. A scoping
report issued in February of 2005, summarized the major issues and concerns from the comments
received during the scoping process. All comments were considered.

Public review and comment of the DEIS was initiated with publication of the BIA Notice
of Availability (NOA).° The NOA was also published in local newspapers. The NOA provided
information concerning the proposed project, comment period, and time and location of public
hearings. Public hearings were held in Vancouver, Washington on June 14 and June 15, 2006. In
response to public requests, on August 25, 2006 the BIA published notice that was re-opening
the comment period until August 25, 2006. The total comment period for the DEIS was 145
days.

All comments received regarding the DEIS received during the comment period,
including those received at the public hearings, and those comments prepared by cooperating
agencies, were considered in preparation of the FEIS. The NOA of the FEIS was then
published.'° The 30-day waiting period was extended through the publication of a notice in the
Federal Register and substantive comments incorporated into the BIA 2010 Record of

Decision."!

3.0 PROPOSED ACTION
3.1 Description of the Proposed Action

The Proposed Action, approval of the GMA, would allow Salishan-Mohegan, LLC
(Salishan-Mohegan) to manage the day-to-day operation of the Tribe’s gaming facility. Salishan-
Mohegan would be responsible for: maintenance of the facility; security of the facility; selection
of insurance; administration of the accounting system; management all hospitality, retail, and
other related activities; setting hours of operation; hiring , training, and dismissal all employees,
supervisors, and management personnel; selection and administration of all gaming; payroll;
food and beverage services; entertainment; distribution of all revenues generated by the facility;

° 69 Fed. Reg. 65447 (Nov. 12, 2004).
° 71 Fed. Reg. 18767 (April 12, 2006).
*° 73 Fed. Reg. 31143 (May 30, 2008).
173 Fed. Reg. 39715 (Aug. 11, 2006).


1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0

9.0

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.1 History of Trust Acquisition, Reservation Proclamation, and Gaming Facility

ADOPTION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

2.1 Adoption of Final Environmental Impact Statement

2.2. Public Involvement

PROPOSED ACTION
3.1. Description of the Proposed Action

3.2 Purpose and Need of the Proposed Action

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4.1 Environmental Impacts Identified in the FEIS

4.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action
ENVIRONMENTAL PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
MITIGATION MEASURES
COMMENTS
DECISION TO IMPLEMENT THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

10.0 SIGNATURE


enacted to promote tribal economic development.' These beneficial economic factors associated
with the Proposed Action may properly be considered by the NIGC Chair?

With the issuance of this ROD, the NIGC announces that the Proposed Action is the
Preferred Alternative in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 1505.2. The NIGC Chair finds that the
Preferred Alternative most suitably meets all aspects of the purpose and needs of the Proposed
Action by promoting the Tribe’s self-governance capabilities and long-term economic
development, while preserving key natural resources of the project site, in accordance with
Federal policies enunciated in the IGRA, the Indian Reorganization Act, and related laws and
regulations. The NIGC Chair’s decision is based on his review of the DEIS, FEIS, Final EIS
Evaluation of Adequacy, and the administrative record.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Esther Dittler, Staff Attorney, National Indian Gaming Commission Office of the General
Counsel, 1849 C Street NW, Mail Stop #1621, Washington, DC 20240; Phone: 202-632-7003;
Facsimile: 202-632-7066; e-mail Esther_Dittler@nige.gov.

125 U.S.C. § 2701(4).
240 C.F.R. § 1505.2(b).


AGENCY:

National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC)
ACTION:

Record of Decision on Selection of Preferred Alternative.
SUMMARY:

This document serves as a Record of Decision (ROD) of the (1) National Indian Gaming
Commission’s (NIGC) adoption of the United State Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the proposed placing of approximately 151.87 acres
of land (Cowlitz Parcel) located in Clark County, Washington, into Federal trust status; issuance
of a reservation proclamation by the Department of the Interior; development of Tribal
headquarters, Tribal elder housing, and Tribal cultural center; approval of a gaming development
and management contract; and development of a casino-resort, including ancillary components;
and (2) the NIGC’s decision to approve the a Gaming Management Agreement (GMA) between
the Cowlitz Indian Tribe, the Cowlitz Tribal Gaming Authority (collectively Tribe), and
Salishan-Mohegan, LLC (Salishan-Mohegan). The BIA, as the lead agency, published the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on May 30, 2008, and a Final EIS Evaluation of
Adequacy in April of 2013. The NIGC, as a Cooperating Agency, has independently reviewed
the existing documents and concludes that the BIA has satisfactorily addressed any comments
the NIGC made to the documents.

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and FEIS, considered a reasonable
range of alternatives that would meet the purpose and need for the proposal, and analyzed the
potential effects of the alternatives, as well feasible mitigation measures. The decision to
construct a gaming facility was an independent determination made by the Tribe and was never
subject to NIGC review. The effects, however, were reviewed in the DEIS and FEIS. The
consequence of the approval of the Proposed Action is that Salishan-Mohegan will control
operation of the Tribe’s gaming facility during the term of the contract. Pursuant to the Tribe’s
Gaming Compact with the State of Washington, the Tribe is required to comply with and enforce
such standards no less stringent than those contained in all Federal laws establishing minimum
standards for environmental protection and Tribal Codes regarding public health, safety, and
environmental protection standards. The Tribe has enacted two ordinances to serve as an
enforceable legal mechanism that would ensure mitigation of the impacts of the Tribe’s decision
to construct its gaming facility.

As set forth in the DEIS and FEIS, and the administrative record related to the Proposed
Action, approval of the GMA will provide the Tribe with a dependable, sustainable source of
income to allow it to achieve self-sufficiency, self-determination, and a strong tribal government.
These effects are consistent with the goals of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which was

2


wells falls within the functional equivalency exception to NEPA, and therefore, not subject to
further analysis. The EPA reviewed the UIC system under the EPA UIC Program, and stated that
no additional NEPA compliance is necessary with respect to the UICs.

The commenter noted that Clark County has raised concerns with the Tribe regarding
discharge of wastewater. We note that, pursuant to the Tribe’s Gaming Compact with the State
of Washington, the Tribe is required to comply with and enforce such standards no less stringent
than those contained in all Federal laws establishing minimum standards for environmental
protection and Tribal Codes regarding public health, safety and environmental protection
standards. The Tribe also enacted two ordinances to serve as an enforceable legal mechanism
that would ensure mitigation of the impacts of the Tribe’s decision to construct its gaming
facility.

The Tribe’s Environmental and Public Health and Safety Ordinance (EPHS Ordinance)
includes a waiver of the Tribe’s sovereign immunity and the Tribe’s consent to be sued by Clark
County in state court to demand specific performance of the EPHS requirements contained in the
ordinance. The EPHS Ordinance was adopted to ensure that the mitigation measures previously
negotiated between the Tribe and Clark County, and memorialized in a Memorandum of
Understanding that has since been challenged by a third party, remain enforceable by Clark
County. In addition, the Tribe’s Gaming Ordinance incorporates the EPHS Ordinance.!” Clark
County and the NIGC have recourse available to address any concerns it may have regarding the
Tribe’s compliance with environmental standards. The applicable standards and available
recourse remain identical under the No Action Alternative and under the Proposed Action and, as
mentioned above, there are no additional impacts imposed through implementation of the
Proposed Action.

9.0 DECISION TO IMPLEMENT THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

The NIGC Chair selects the Preferred Alternative, described herein. This decision is
made based upon the analyses and information contained in the DEIS, FEIS, Final EIS
Evaluation of Adequacy, and the administrative record related to that analysis. Based upon the
information and analyses contained in the foregoing documents, the NIGC Chair finds that the
Preferred Alternative will not result in any adverse effects on the environment and it will
maximize the economic benefit to the Tribe over and above the economic benefit that could be
realized through the No Action Alternative.

* Cowlitz Indian Tribe Gaming Ordinance, § 22.

13