Opinion ID: 186599
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Supplement to the EA

Text: 17 On remand, BIA prepared a supplement to its EA (EA Supplement) to update and expand its earlier analysis and to focus on the District Court's secondary impact concerns. See EA Supplement (Aug.2003), J.A. 776. In addition to identifying the specific geographic areas potentially impacted by the gaming resort, Interior predicted the pattern and extent of casino-induced residential and commercial growth by analyzing, among other things, zoning laws, permitting requirements, economic forecasts, demographics, available utilities, environmental regulations, and land use practices. These development predictions were used to analyze potential impacts on natural and cultural resources including the water supply, sewer system, air quality, transportation and traffic, and public safety. The Bureau also evaluated potential cumulative impacts of the gaming resort in combination with other past, present, and potential future operations in the area, and provided detailed mitigation measures to address any potential significant impacts. 18 The Bureau concluded that the only potentially significant impact from induced growth was an increased demand for water and sewage services which might tax the existing capacities of those systems. In both cases, the Bureau found that the Tribe's agreement to cover significant portions of the costs to build a new water plant and distribution system, as well as to install oversized sewer lines, sufficiently mitigated any potential harm. 19 Particularly germane to this appeal is BIA's analysis of the gaming resort's direct and indirect impacts on local air quality. In TOMAC II, the District Court found the EA's analysis of the project's impact on air quality to be lacking, primarily because BIA's traffic study was insufficient. TOMAC II, 240 F.Supp.2d at 51 (noting that the EA failed to estimate the impact of the non-casino traffic growth generated by the 17% growth in residency expected as a result of the project). In preparing its EA Supplement, the Bureau commissioned Soil and Materials Engineers, Inc. (SME) to prepare a revised air quality study. In the revised assessment, BIA directed SME to broaden its focus to capture the impact on air quality of the indirect development activity as a result of the gaming resort. SME thus examined four potential air quality impacts: (1) vehicle emissions resulting from increased traffic associated with indirect development throughout the region, (2) stationary source emissions from establishments that are anticipated to be built in the region, (3) construction related emissions, and (4) ambient air quality contaminants from facilities and activities in the vicinity of the project site. Report of Air Quality Impact Assessment, Soil & Materials Engineers, Inc. at i (July 11, 2003), reprinted in EA Supplement, supra, at app. BB, J.A. 1105 (SME Supplementary Report). 20 SME employed the same methodology in the revised analysis as it did in its original examination, using carbon monoxide as a predictive tool for meeting the then-existing National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Since carbon monoxide is more likely than the other relevant contaminants ( e.g., particulate matter, nitrogen oxide, and hydrocarbons) to impact air quality, a finding of de minimis carbon monoxide impact would indicate that the other criteria air pollutants would likely be in compliance. Based on SME's updated study, BIA confirmed that [c]arbon monoxide and other NAAQS criteria air pollutants expected to be produce[d] by the indirect effects from the Project indicates that those air pollutants will be in compliance with [then-existing] NAAQS standards. EA Supplement, supra, at 48, J.A. 825. In addition, SME concluded that since ozone, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxide are regional in nature[,].... meaningful evaluation of their effects on a project-by-project basis is not practical. SME Supplementary Report, supra, at 8, J.A. 1113. 21 In both its EA and EA Supplement, the Bureau continued to evaluate air quality impact based in part on EPA's then-existing more lenient 1-hour ozone standard. Under that standard, Berrien County was considered an area of attainment — i.e., in compliance with the CAA. While EPA had promulgated a more rigorous 8-hour standard in 1997 that put Berrien County's attainment status in jeopardy, see National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, 62 Fed.Reg. 38,856 (July 18, 1997) (codified at 40 C.F.R. § 50.10 (2005)), on-going litigation left its implementation in doubt at the time the EA was produced. See Am. Trucking Ass'ns v. EPA, 283 F.3d 355 (D.C.Cir.2002) ( Am. Trucking I ); Am. Trucking Ass'ns v. EPA, 175 F.3d 1027, reh'g granted in part and denied in part, 195 F.3d 4 (D.C.Cir.1999), rev'd in part sub nom. Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass'ns, 531 U.S. 457, 121 S.Ct. 903, 149 L.Ed.2d 1 (2001) ( Am. Trucking II ). In addition, while EPA's 8-hour standard was upheld in 2002, Am. Trucking I, 283 F.3d at 379, Berrien County was not designated nonattainment until June 15, 2004. See Air Quality Designations and Classifications for the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 69 Fed.Reg. 23,858, 23,910 (Apr. 30, 2004) (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. pt. 81) (8-Hour Standards), which was almost a year after SME's second study was completed. 22 The Bureau suggested, however, that in the event that Berrien County became designated an area of nonattainment prior to project construction, a General Conformity Analysis would be required. EA, supra, at 25, J.A. 337. A conformity analysis, which is required by the CAA for federal actions within nonattainment and maintenance areas, must demonstrate how the actions conform to the existing State Implementation Plan to remedy the air pollution problem. See 42 U.S.C. § 7506(c) (2000). 23 On November 20, 2003, based upon the analysis in the EA and the EA Supplement, BIA issued a Revised FONSI, in which it renewed its position that implementation of the proposed action would have no significant impact on the human environment and that an EIS was not required. Following this issuance, Interior filed a renewed motion for summary judgment and relief from the temporary injunction imposed by the District Court. On March 24, 2005, the District Court issued an order finding that Interior had fully complied with NEPA, and granted its summary judgment motion and lifted the temporary injunction. TOMAC III, 2005 WL 2375171, at . In granting summary judgment for Interior, the District Court rejected TOMAC's claims that BIA had failed to provide an adequate opportunity for public comment, id. at , and held that BIA adequately addressed the impact of the project on air quality and local water and sewer systems, as well as the cumulative impacts of the gaming resort. Id. at -5. 24 TOMAC now appeals the District Court's successive grants of summary judgment to Interior. In turn, Interior and intervenors renew their claims that TOMAC lacks standing.