Barnes v. Babbitt
| Decision Date | 20 July 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV. 02-1019-JD.,No. CIV. 00-CV-581.,No. CIV. 00-1014-PHX.,CIV. 00-CV-581.,CIV. 00-1014-PHX.,CIV. 02-1019-JD. |
| Citation | 329 F.Supp.2d 1141 |
| Parties | Erik BARNES, et al. v. Bruce BABBITT, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Arizona |
Thomas K. Kelly, Esq, Carrie Ann Kelly, Thomas K. Kelly PC, Prescott, AZ, for Plaintiffs.
Richard Glenn Patrick, Esq, U.S. Attorney's Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants.
Plaintiffs National Wildlife Federation, Arizona Wildlife Federation, Maricopa Audubon Society, Sierra Club, and The Wilderness Society ("Environmental Plaintiffs") brought suit against the United States Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") challenging two decisions pertaining to the Arrastra Mountain Wilderness. Erik and Tina Barnes, who own land affected by the decisions, brought suit against the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, and two BLM officials.1 The cases have been consolidated. All of the parties move for summary judgment based on a stipulated record.
The Arrastra Mountain Wilderness is located in west central Arizona and encompasses approximately 126,760 acres in Mojave, Yavapai, and La Paz Counties. The Arrastra Mountain Wilderness was designated by the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990 ("ADWA"), on November 28, 1990. Pub.L. No. 101-628, 104 Stat. 4469, § 101(a)(8). Except for some mining claims and private inholding parcels, the Wilderness is federal public land managed by the BLM. When the Wilderness was designated in 1990, the BLM closed the area to motorized vehicles.
Portions of five grazing allotments are located within the Wilderness. The Wilderness encompasses diverse plant and animal life, including an area where saguaro cactuses of the Sonoran Desert and Joshua trees of the Mojave Desert grow together. In addition, Peeples Canyon, a five-mile deep canyon desert oasis with perennial springs, waterfalls, rock formations, and riparian habitat, is included within the Wilderness.3
Erik and Tina Barnes, with their partners, bought the Santa Maria Ranch in Yavapai County, Arizona, in June of 1990 for $350,000. The Ranch consists of 1000 acres near the Arrastra Mountain Wilderness and a forty-acre private inholding parcel in Peeples Canyon. The Barneses also hold grazing rights on land owned by the BLM and the State of Arizona known as the Santa Maria Allotment.
There are no buildings in Peeples Canyon. Except for the Barneses' forty-acre private inholding, which is located at the bottom of the Canyon, the rest of the Canyon is federal public land. Cattle are excluded from the Canyon to preserve the water quality in Peeples Canyon Spring and the stream that runs it.4 The stream has been designated a "unique water" by the State of Arizona for purposes of the Clean Water Act. A jeep access to the private inholding was bulldozed across property that was owned by the State of Arizona out to the highway in 1940. In the 1960s, the owners of the inholding tore up the access to make it impassable to ordinary four-wheel-drive vehicles. Subsequent owners repaired the access, but after 1980, the access down from the Canyon rim became eroded and was not repaired. Before the Barneses acquired the inholding, the previous owner accessed the inholding from the Canyon rim by foot or horseback.
The inholding was historically used as a site for a gasoline-powered pump to supply water to tanks, located outside of the Canyon, that provided water for grazing livestock. The pump stopped functioning in 1980 and was removed in 1990. All livestock operations stopped on the Santa Maria Ranch four or five years before the Barneses bought it in 1990.
After buying the Ranch in June of 1990, the Barneses applied to the BLM to activate grazing on the Santa Maria grazing allotment, seeking permission for 240 head of cattle. In response to the application, the BLM issued notice of a proposed decision in September of 1990. The Environmental Plaintiffs filed a protest, and the BLM issued a draft environmental assessment for the proposal on March 15, 1991. On May 31, 1991, the BLM issued a final Environmental Assessment ("EA") for the Barneses' proposal for livestock grazing, AZ-026-91-14, ("Grazing EA"). The Grazing EA considered three alternative actions: grazing as proposed by the Barneses, grazing in a reduced format, and no action. It concluded that the Barneses' grazing proposal, with certain stipulations, would have no environmental impact.
In October of 1993, the BLM issued a draft Range Improvement Plan and Environmental Assessment of the grazing allotments in the area for public comment. The final Range Improvement Plan and Environmental Assessment ("RIM Plan EA"), AZ-026-92-0111, was issued in July of 1996. The purpose of the RIM Plan EA was to provide "direction for the management of ongoing livestock grazing operations and maintenance of the range improvements in the Arrastra Mountain Wilderness on grazing allotments administered by the Lower Gila Resource Area." Ex. V, RIM Plan EA at 5. The RIM Plan EA considered two alternatives: "Limited Motorized/Mechanized Use Alternative (Proposed Action)" and "No Motorized Mechanized Use Alternative (No Action)." Id. at 11 & 27. The RIM Plan EA addressed the repair and maintenance of all "historically maintained" range developments, not just those that were then operational, and did not consider an alternative for fewer than all of the water facilities. Id. at 5 & 28.
Along with the RIM Plan EA, the BLM issued a decision ("RIM Plan Decision") that adopted the proposed action alternative. As such, the RIM Plan Decision authorized the use, within certain limits, of motor vehicles and mechanized equipment to restore and maintain water developments and vehicle routes within the Wilderness. With respect to access into the Barneses' inholding in Peeples Canyon, the RIM Plan Decision authorized mechanized development of the access route to permit a four-wheel-drive pickup truck to pass from the Wilderness boundary to the rim of the Canyon. The vehicle routes, including the access to the Barneses' inholding, would be repaired, maintained, and used only as necessary for maintaining the grazing developments.
A third environmental assessment, AZ-026-94-23, Wilderness Inholding Access, Arrastra Mountain Wilderness ("Access EA"), issued in December of 1996, addressed only the access route to the Barneses' inholding.5 The Access EA was preceded by a draft for public comment issued in June of 1994. The Access EA analyzed three alternatives for different levels of repair or improvement and maintenance for vehicle access and one alternative for no action, which would prevent vehicle access. The Access Decision, issued at the same time, authorized repairs of the access route that would allow passage of a four-wheel-drive pickup truck and certain other motorized vehicles but only for limited purposes.
In 1995, during the process of assessing the environmental impact of grazing, range improvement, and access to the Barneses' inholding, the BLM met with Erik Barnes to discuss the possibility of federal acquisition of the inholding through a land exchange. On May 8, 1995, the BLM sent a letter that reported it "could justify an exchange value of approximately $200,000.00" for the Peeples Canyon inholding and the Barneses' grazing rights in the Wilderness. Ex. A, subex. D. The letter concluded that "[t]his administratively established value is submitted for your consideration but may be modified or withdrawn at any time without notice." Id. Erik Barnes responded on May 25, 1995, that they were "disappointed with the $200,000 offer." Id. He suggested instead a long-term lease, stated that he hoped they were still negotiating in good faith, and also noted that time was important to them. Id. at subex. E. The record includes nothing further about the proposed exchange.
Neither the Barneses nor the Environmental Plaintiffs were satisfied with the BLM's RIM Plan and Access Decisions, issued in 1996, and filed appeals, which were consolidated. The RIM Plan Decision and Access Decision were affirmed by the Interior Board of Land Appeals ("IBLA") in November of 1999. National Wildlife Federation, 151 IBLA 104 (1999) (affirming RIM Plan Decision). Erik & Tina Barnes, 151 IBLA 128 (1999) (affirming Access Decision). The Barneses filed suit on March 31, 2000, and later filed an amended complaint, seeking a declaratory judgment that the BLM decisions resulted in a taking of their right to motorized access to their inholding in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, seeking to quiet title to a public right of way across the Wilderness land to the inholding, and seeking review of the IBLA decisions under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Environmental Plaintiffs also brought suit and then filed an amended complaint, requesting review of the IBLA decisions and seeking a declaratory judgment that the decisions violate federal law and BLM regulations and an injunction to preclude implementation of the RIM and Access Decisions. The actions were consolidated.
The parties have filed cross motions for summary judgment based on a joint statement of stipulated facts and an agreed compilation of documents from the administrative record. The defendants filed a supplemental administrative record of four documents.6 Summary judgment is appropriate when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).
In their motion for summary judgment, the Barneses address only their quiet title claim, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2409a.7 "The Quiet Title Act [28 U.S.C. § 2409a] permits suit against the United States `to adjudicate a disputed title to real property in which the United...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Citizens of the Ebey's Reserve for a Healthy , Safe & Peaceful Env’t v. U.S. Dep't of the Navy, C13–1232 TSZ.
...those regarding compliance with NEPA, are subject to a six-year statute of limitations. 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) ; Barnes v. Babbitt, 329 F.Supp.2d 1141, 1158–59 (D.Ariz.2004). "When a party challenges an agency decision based on NEPA, ordinarily the claim accrues when the EIS, the Record of Dec......
-
In re Schugg
...of the easement. Montana Wilderness Ass'n v. United States Forest Service, 496 F.Supp. 880, 885 (D.Mont.1980); Barnes v. Babbitt, 329 F.Supp.2d 1141, 1148 (D.Ariz.2004). 50. An easement by necessity is extinguished once the necessity is no longer present. Fitzgerald Living Trust v. United S......
-
McFarland v. Kempthorne
...necessity ceases to exist. Id. McFarland bears the burden of proving each element of an easement by necessity. See Barnes v. Babbitt, 329 F.Supp.2d 1141, 1148-49 (D.Ariz.2004). Defendants do not dispute that unity of title existed and was severed in 1916 when the United States conveyed the ......
-
CHAPTER 9 NEPA APPEALS AND LITIGATION: JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURAL ISSUES1
...actions covered under an earlier NEPA document. It does not begin to run when the first NEPA document was issued. Barnes v. Babbitt, 329 F.Supp2d 1141, 1159 (D. Ariz. 2004). Generally, when a NEPA claim is linked to another statutory claim whose statute of limitations is shorter than the ge......