Here are the materials in City of Yreka v. Salazar (E.D. Cal.):

DCT Order Granting Summary J to Government

City’s Motion for Summary J

DOI Motion for Summary J

An excerpt:

Plaintiffs argue that the regional director failed to consider the impact of gaming uses. (Pls.’ Mot. at 6:26–7:28; Pls.’ Opp’n at 4:22–28.) However, the Secretary need not consider “speculati[ve]” future uses of the land. See City of Lincoln City, 229 F.Supp.2d at 1124; see e.g., South Dakota I, 423 F.3d at 801, 801 n. 9 (holding that “the Secretary was not required to seek out further evidence of possible gaming purposes in light of the Tribe’s repeated assurances that it did not intend to use the land for gaming,” a letter from the then-state governor stating that he had been assured that the tribe would not conduct gaming on the land, and the tribe’s acknowledgment that “if it were later to seek to allow gaming on the land, it would fully comply with the additional application and approval requirements in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701–2721”). As the IBIA’s decision explained the issue:

This fear … is entirely speculative. Nothing in the record suggests that the Tribe contemplates the use of the parcel for gaming. To the contrary, not only does the Tribe admit that the land does not qualify for gaming use under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. § 2719(a), but the Tribe contends that the renovated site is completely developed and could not feasibly or fiscally-responsibly be used for gaming even if the Tribe wanted it to be so used. Additionally Tribal Resolution No. 07–R–160, approved on December 19, 2007, explicitly eschewed the use of the parcel for gaming.

City of Yreka, 51 IBIA at 296–97. Accordingly, the regional director adequately considered the tribe’s purpose for the land.