Crawford-Hall v. United States
| Decision Date | 13 February 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:17-cv-01616-SVW-AFM |
| Parties | Anne CRAWFORD-HALL et al. v. UNITED STATES of America et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
A. Barry Cappello, Lawrence J. Conlan, Wendy Welkom, Cappello and Noel LLP, Santa Barbara, CA, for Anne Crawford-Hall et al.
Rebecca M. Ross, Dedra S. Curteman, US Department of Justice Environment and Natural Resources Divison, Washington, DC, for United States of America et al.
Proceedings: ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO PLAINTIFFS IN PART AND STAYING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS [51][52]
Before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment filed by Plaintiffs Anne Crawford-Hall, San Lucas Ranch, LLC, and Holy Cow Performance Horses, LLC ("Plaintiffs"), Dkt. 51, and by Federal Defendants the United States of America et al. (the "United States"), Dkt. 52, regarding Plaintiffs' First, Third, and Fourth causes of action. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on Plaintiffs' First cause of action, the Court DENIES summary judgment to both parties as to Plaintiffs' Third and Fourth causes of action as unripe, and the Court STAYS further proceedings in this action.
In 2010, the Santa Ynez Band of Mission Indians (the "Band" or the "Tribe") purchased over 1400 acres of real property in Santa Barbara County, California, locally known as Camp 4 ("Camp 4" or the "Property"). Complaint, Dkt. 1 ("Compl."), ¶ 39; Answer, Dkt. 30 ("Answer"), ¶ 39. Camp 4 is located directly across the street from Plaintiffs San Lucas Ranch, LLC and Holy Cow Performance Horses, LLC, each of which is managed by Plaintiff Crawford-Hall. Id. ¶ 14. Camp 4 was previously owned by Ms. Crawford-Hall's family. Id.
In June 2013, the Band filed an application with the Bureau of Indian Affairs ("BIA"), a federal agency within the Department of the Interior ("Interior" or the "Department"), requesting that BIA take Camp 4 into trust pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, 25 U.S.C. §§ 5101 et seq. (the "IRA"). See Administrative Record ("AR") 0030; see also 25 U.S.C. § 5108 ; 25 C.F.R. part 151. The application was supplemented in July 2013, see AR0032, and revised in November 2013, see AR0080. The trust acquisition would allow the Band to exercise full tribal governance and sovereignty over the property, with limited state or federal government interference. AR0194.14. The Band's primary goal for placing Camp 4 in trust was to facilitate the construction of additional housing for the Band's members, which would also advance the Band's efforts to bring tribal members and lineal descendants back to the Band's tribal community in order to protect and maintain the Band's heritage and culture. See AR0194.13-14.
In considering the Band's application for trust acquisition for the Camp 4 property, BIA conducted an environmental review pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq. ("NEPA"). In August 2013, BIA prepared a Draft Environmental Assessment (the "Draft EA") and made the Draft EA available for public comment for a total of 90 days. AR0194.8, 12; see also AR0127. In May 2014, BIA issued a Final Environmental Assessment (the "Final EA"), totaling almost 2,000 pages, that analyzed the potential environmental effects of the trust acquisition pursuant to the Band's application. See generally AR0194.
In the Final EA, BIA addressed a wide variety of environmental issues, including land resources, water resources, air quality and climate change, biological resources, cultural resources, socioeconomic conditions and environmental justice, transportation and circulation, land use, public services, noise, hazardous materials, and visual resources. AR0194.15. The Final EA identified three reasonable project alternatives and analyzed the potential environmental consequences and potential cumulative impacts for each alternative. See generally AR0194.17-35; AR0194.120-193. The three alternatives are the following:
BIA compared the three alternatives to assess the relative benefits and environmental impacts for each alternative. AR0194.32-35; see also AR0194.120-153 (environmental consequences of Alternative A); AR0194.153-72 (environmental consequences of Alternative B); AR0194.173-75 (environmental consequences of Alternative C); AR0194.176-91 (cumulative effects for Alternatives A and B). In comparing Alternative A to Alternative B, each of which satisfied the Band's objective to obtain Camp 4 under tribal jurisdiction, BIA determined that "Alternative B would result in additional beneficial socioeconomic impacts through the development of additional tribal facilities." AR0194.35. BIA assessed Alternative C and determined that rejecting the Band's trust application would not pose many of the potential environmental effects discussed in connection with the other alternatives. Id.; see also AR0194.173. However, BIA also determined that rejecting the Band's application would result in increased groundwater usage based on representations from the Band that there would be an expansion of the existing vineyard on the Property, which would not occur if the Band's application was approved. AR0194.173. BIA ultimately concluded that "[d]espite the proportionately greater overall effects on the environment of Alternatives A or B, none of the identified impacts would be significant and unavoidable, following implementation of protective measures and mitigation recommended in this document." AR0194.35.
BIA also considered mitigation measures for the proposed trust acquisition under Alternatives A or B to minimize or eliminate certain adverse impacts. AR0194.194-204. Proposed mitigation measures include, among others: best management practices to minimize impacts to soils (AR0194.194-95); restrictions on where new groundwater wells can be constructed on the property and prohibitions on turf grass irrigation during years of local drought conditions (AR0194.196); measures to protect air quality, largely aimed toward vehicle use on the property (AR0194.196-97); protections for biological resources in the area, such as the preparation of an arborist report to provide a revegetation plan for oak trees and the implementation of habitat sensitivity training for construction contractors and other personnel on the property (AR0194.197-200); the use of buffer zones around cultural resources (AR0194.200); monetary contributions from the Band for traffic improvements (AR0194.201-02); and a requirement for the Band to enter into an agreement with the county fire department to provide fire protection and emergency response services to individuals living on the property after it is taken into trust (AR0194.203). BIA noted that the mitigation measures "will be binding on the Tribe because it is intrinsic to the project, required by federal law, required by agreements between the Tribe and local agencies, and/or subject to a tribal resolution." AR0194.194.
The Final EA was released for public comment for a period of 30 days. AR0194.00014. Following the public comment period, on October 17, 2014, BIA issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (the "FONSI"), concluding that the proposed federal action to approve the Band's application to acquire the Property in trust for the purpose of developing up to 143 units of tribal housing and associated facilities "does not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment." AR0237.22. Because BIA found that approving the Band's application would not significantly impact the environment, BIA determined that the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement was not required. Id.
On December 24, 2014, BIA Regional Director Amy Dutschke, relying on the Final EA and the FONSI, issued a Notice of Decision announcing the intent to acquire the Property in trust for the Tribe (the "2014 NOD"). See AR0258.72-100. In the 2014 NOD, Regional Director Dutschke evaluated the Tribe's application under the applicable regulatory factors and addressed comments from state and local government entities and the general public. See AR0258.84-96; 25 C.F.R. §§ 151.10 - 11.
In late January 2017, Plaintiffs and other parties filed administrative appeals of the 2014 NOD to the Interior Board of Indian Appeals ("IBIA" or the "Board"). Compl. ¶ 64; Answer ¶ 64. IBIA is an administrative appellate board authorized to review decisions of BIA officials. See 25 C.F.R. § 2.3 ; 43 C.F.R. § 4.330. In a letter dated January 30, 2015, Assistant Secretary–Indian Affairs ("Assistant Secretary") Kevin Washburn assumed jurisdiction over the administrative appeals of the 2014 NOD pursuant to 25 C.F.R. § 2.20. See AR0258.816-23. By taking jurisdiction over the appeals, Assistant Secretary Washburn divested IBIA of its authority to hear the appeals, and IBIA transferred the appeals to the Assistant Secretary's offices. See AR0258.816-17; 25 C.F.R. § 2.20(c).
While the administrative appeals of the 2014 NOD were pending, on December 31, 2015,...
To continue reading
Request your trial