Opinion ID: 771609
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Reserved Indian Rights

Text: 70 The Colville Reservation was established in 1872. It consists of 2.9 million acres between the Columbia and Okanogan Rivers, bounded on the north by the Canadian border. In 1891 the Colville Indians entered into an Agreement with the United States, in which the Tribes ceded to the government roughly 1.5 million acres (collectively,the NorthHalf), but reserved the right to hunt and fish on the ceded land. The Agreement states that  `the right to hunt and fish in common with all other persons on lands not allotted to said Indians shall not be taken away or in anywise abridged.'  Antoine v. Washington, 420 U.S. 194, 196 n.4 (1975). 71 The Project lies within the North Half; approximately 2,000 acres of hunting and fishing territory will not be available to Colville members over the life of the Project. The Forest Service concluded that the Project will not affect[Colville's] reserved rights to hunt and fish on the North Half.  The district court ruled that this determination was based on a reasoned evaluation . . . such that its decision can be considered neither arbitrary nor capricious.2. Discussion 72 Federal agencies owe a fiduciary responsibility to Native American tribes. Morongo Band, 161 F.3d at 574; see also Klamath Water Users Protective Ass'n v. Patterson , 204 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating that the United States, as a trustee for the Tribes, has a responsibility to protect their rights and resources). In the absence of a specific duty, this responsibility is discharged by the agency's compliance with general regulations and statutes not specifically aimed at protecting Indian tribes. Morongo Band, 161 F.3d at 574. 73 Significantly, Colville's arguments are procedural in nature. Colville does not argue that any of the substantive rights guaranteed in the Agreement have been violated but, rather, that the EIS and ROD include only passing references to Colville's reserved rights. Colville argues specifically that the Forest Service failed to give adequate consideration to Colville's reserved hunting and fishing rights in five ways: (1) by failing to include in the EIS or the ROD a discussion of the effect of the Project on culture and subsistence, a feature of Colville's reserved rights; (2) by under calculating the tribal deer harvest; (3) by failing to include an adequate discussion of the effect of the Project on water quality, and, instead, deferring those issues to the state; (4) by failing to include an adequate discussion of mitigating measures; and (5) by failing to select Alternative C. Colville's challenge is, in essence, a challenge to the adequacy of the EIS, and the normal APA standard of review applies. See Morongo Band, 161 F.3d at 573-74 (examining whether the FAA's decision under NEPA violated its trust responsibility owed to a Tribe by applying the arbitrary and capricious standard of review). 74 We already have considered arguments 3, 4, and 5 in earlier sections of this opinion. We turn, then, to a consideration of the first and second arguments. 75 In response to the first argument, we conclude that the discussion of Colville's reserved rights is sufficient. The EIS and ROD contain numerous acknowledgments of Colville's rights. See, e.g., EIS 4.27.7 at 4-251 (including Colville's reserved hunting and fishing rights, and tribal cultural properties, as environmental issues that were considered and addressed); EIS 1.9.3 at 1-11 (recognizing Colville as distinct, separate, political entities that have a unique legal relationship with Federal agencies, and noting that their reserved rights are addressed); EIS 1.10.2 at 1-12 (stating that a key issue addressed in the EIS is the Project's potential to affect cultural resources, reserved rights, trust issues, and responsibilities); EIS 3.9.1 at 3-69 to 3-70 (noting that the water resources in the Project area may be necessary to satisfy the Tribe's federally reserved water rights); EISS 3.13.3 at 3-93 (acknowledging Colville's hunting rights in the North Half). 76 The Forest Service examined the issues that will affect Colville's reserved rights and concluded that the Project will have no significant effects on hunting and fishing resources in the North Half. The ROD states: 77 Approximately 2000 acres of hunting and fishing territory will not be available to Tribal members over the life of the project. This is less than 1% of the total acreage of Federal lands available for Tribal hunting within the North Half. The small streams within the project area do not support fish popula tions. Project effects to the harvest of wildlife and fish by tribal members is not quantifiable; rather the effects to wildlife and fish habitat and stream flows has been disclosed in the FEIS (see Sections 4.11 Aquatic Habitat and Populations; and 4.12 Wildlife). 78 ROD at 20-21. 79 Section 3.12 of the EIS analyzes extensively the aquatic habitat in the Project area. Section 4.11 contains an extensive discussion of the potential effect of the Project on aquatic habitats. The Forest Service concluded that there would be no adverse effect on fish resources from the use of cyanide or from waste-rock disposal, but that there might be a short-term impact from an increase in turbidity and suspended sediments. 80 Section 3.13 of the EIS analyzes the wildlife habitat in the Project area. Section 4.12 discusses the potential adverse effects of the Project on wildlife. The Forest Service concluded that the selected alternative will result in both shortterm and long-term effects to wildlife . . . . While some impacts will be permanent (e.g. much of the pit excavation), others will be reversible through reclamation. In Appendix H of the EIS, the Forest Service admitted that deer population data are incomplete. However, [e]ven in the event that deer numbers are reduced in the [Project] area, the reduction would be relatively minor in comparison to the total deer population in the Analysis Area. Any potential reductions would be mitigated by road closures and, in fact, deer population might increase since no hunting and firearms will be permitted within the mine area and undisturbed areas of suitable habitat would remain within the fenced mine perimeter. Id. Moreover, more than 600 acres of land would be acquired from private sources. 81 The EIS and ROD state repeatedly that Colville's reserved rights must be considered. The EIS extensively analyzes the issues that would affect those reserved rights and concludes that the impact would not be significant. We hold, then, that the Forest Service took the requisite hard look at the issues that will affect Colville's reserved rights. 82 Finally, in its second argument, Colville points to an error in EIS 3.15.4, in which the Forest Service estimated that Colville members harvested 28 deer in an area that includes the Project area. The Forest Service issued a corrected statement that increased the estimate to 219. That correction does not render the Forest Service's actions arbitrary or capricious. The decision that Colville's reserved rights would not be substantially affected by the Project was based on the mitigating measures (which are expected to increase deer habitat), and on a comparison of the amount of habitat affected to the total habitat. In other words, the decision did not depend on the number of deer harvested. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's ruling on this issue. 83 AFFIRMED.