DOCSLIB.ORG

Antelope Valley Community College District 2016 Facilities Master Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Antelope Valley Community College District 2016 Facilities Master Plan Antelope Valley Community College District 2016 Facilities Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH#2018051057 prepared by Antelope Valley Community College District 3041 West Avenue K Lancaster, California 93536-5426 Contact: Doug Jensen, Executive Director, Facilities Services prepared with the assistance of Rincon Consultants, Inc. 250 East 1st Street, Suite 301 Los Angeles, California 90012 August 2018 Antelope Valley Community College District 2016 Facilities Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH#2018051057 prepared by Antelope Valley Community College District 3041 West Avenue K Lancaster, California 93536-5426 Contact: Doug Jenson, Executive Director, Facilities Services prepared with the assistance of Rincon Consultants, Inc. 250 East 1st Street, Suite 301 Los Angeles, California 90012 August 2018 This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content. Table of Contents Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... ES-1 Project Synopsis ......................................................................................................................... ES-1 Project Objectives ...................................................................................................................... ES-4 Alternatives ................................................................................................................................ ES-4 Areas of Known Controversy ..................................................................................................... ES-5 Required Approvals ................................................................................................................... ES-6 Issues Not Studied in Detail in the EIR ....................................................................................... ES-6 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................................ ES-6 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Environmental Impact Report Background..................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Purpose and Legal Authority ........................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Scope and Content .......................................................................................................... 1-2 1.4 Type of Environmental Impact Report ............................................................................ 1-3 1.5 Issues Not Studied in Detail in the EIR ............................................................................ 1-3 1.6 Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies ....................................................................... 1-4 1.7 Environmental Review Process ....................................................................................... 1-4 2 Project Description ..................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Project Applicant ............................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Lead Agency Contact Person ........................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Project Location .............................................................................................................. 2-1 2.4 Project Characteristics .................................................................................................... 2-1 2.5 Existing Site Characteristics ............................................................................................ 2-4 2.5.1 Current Land Use Designation and Zoning ..................................................... 2-4 2.5.2 Surrounding Land Uses ................................................................................... 2-4 2.5.3 Planning and Design ....................................................................................... 2-8 2.5.4 Parking and Site Access .................................................................................. 2-9 2.5.5 Phased Development and Construction ....................................................... 2-11 2.6 Project Objectives ......................................................................................................... 2-13 2.7 Required Approvals ....................................................................................................... 2-14 3 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Regional Setting .............................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Project Site Setting .......................................................................................................... 3-1 3.3 Cumulative Development ............................................................................................... 3-2 4 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................................................................. 4-1 4.1 Aesthetics ..................................................................................................................... 4.1-1 4.1.1 Setting .......................................................................................................... 4.1-1 4.1.2 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................ 4.1-9 4.2 Air Quality .................................................................................................................... 4.2-1 4.2.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................. 4.2-1 4.2.2 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................ 4.2-7 Draft Environmental Impact Report i Antelope Valley Community College District Antelope Valley Community College District 2016 Facilities Master Plan 4.3 Biological Resources ..................................................................................................... 4.3-1 4.3.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................. 4.3-1 4.3.2 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... 4.3-13 4.4 Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................... 4.4-1 4.4.1 Setting .......................................................................................................... 4.4-1 4.4.2 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... 4.4-16 4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .......................................................................................... 4.5-1 4.5.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................. 4.5-1 4.5.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.5-6 4.5.3 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... 4.5-12 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................... 4.6-1 4.6.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................. 4.6-1 4.6.2 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................ 4.6-6 4.7 Noise ............................................................................................................................ 4.7-1 4.7.1 Setting .......................................................................................................... 4.7-1 4.7.2 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... 4.7-10 4.8 Transportation and Traffic ........................................................................................... 4.8-1 4.8.1 Setting .......................................................................................................... 4.8-1 4.8.2 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................ 4.8-7 4.9 Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................................................. 4.9-1 4.9.1 Setting .......................................................................................................... 4.9-1 4.9.2 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................ 4.9-3 4.10 Utilities and Service Systems ..................................................................................... 4.10-1 4.10.1 Setting ........................................................................................................ 4.10-1 4.10.2 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... 4.10-9 4.11 Impacts Found Not to be Significant .......................................................................... 4.11-1 4.11.1 Aesthetics .................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Area Boundary Descriptions Enclosure 2
    Enclosure 2 California NO2 Areas Boundary Descriptions Amador County Air Pollution Control District All of Amador County Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District That portion of Los Angeles County which lies north and east of a line described as follows: Beginning at the Los Angeles-San Bernardino County boundary and running west along the township line common to T. 3 N and T. 2 N, San Bernardino Base and Meridian; then north along the range line common to R. 8 W and R. 9 W; then west along the township line common to T. 4 N and T. 3 N; then north along the range line common to R. 12 W and R. 13 W to the southeast corner of Section 12, T. 5 N, R. 13 W; then west along the south boundaries of Sections 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, T. 5 N, R. 13 W to the boundary of the Angeles National Forest which is collinear with the range line common to R. 13 W and R. 14 W; then north and west along the Angeles National Forest boundary to the point of intersection with the township line common to T. 7 N and T. 6 N (point is at the northwest corner of Section 4 in T. 6 N, R. 14 W); then west along the township line common to T. 7 N and T. 6 N; then north along the range line common to R. 15 W and R. 16 W to the southeast corner of Section 13, T. 7 N, R. 16 W; then along the south boundaries of Sections 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, T.
    [Show full text]
  • Out of Doors--California and Oregon
    Out of Doors--California and Oregon J. A. Graves Project Gutenberg's Out of Doors--California and Oregon, by J. A. Graves This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net Title: Out of Doors--California and Oregon Author: J. A. Graves Release Date: March 8, 2004 [EBook #11517] Language: English Character set encoding: ASCII *** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CALIFORNIA AND OREGON *** Produced by David A. Schwan Out of Doors California and Oregon By J. A. Graves Profusely Illustrated 1912 Contents A Motor Trip in San Diego's Back Country A Hunting Trip in the Long Ago Professor Lo, Philosopher A Great Day's Sport on Warner's Ranch Boyhood Days in Early California Last Quail Shoot of the Year 1911 An Auto Trip Through the Sierras To the memory of my sons Selwyn Emmett Graves and Jackson A. Graves, Jr. Both of whom were nature lovers, this book is lovingly dedicated. Illustrations J. A. Graves Frontispiece Mount Pitt Cuyamaca Lake, Near Pine Hills El Cajon Valley, San Diego County, from Schumann-Heink Point, Grossmont In San Diego County San Diego Mountain Scene Fern Brake, Palomar Mountain The Margarita Ranch House San Diego and Coronado Islands from Grossmont Grade on Palomar Mountain Pelican Bay, Klamath Lake On Klamath River Klamath Lake and Link River Spring Creek Wood River, Oregon The Killican Williamson River Scorpion Harbor, Santa
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of the Cultural Resources of the Western Mojave Desert
    BLM LIBRARY BURE/ IT 88014080 An Overview of the Cultural Resources of the Western Mojave Desert by E . G ary Stic kel and - L ois J . W einm an Ro berts with sections by Rainer Beig ei and Pare Hopa cultural resources publications anthropology— history Cover design represents a petroglyph element from Inscription Canyon, San Bernardino County, California. : AN OVERVIEW OF THE CULTURAL RESOURCES OF THE WESTERN TOJAVE DESERT by Gary Stickel and Lois J. Weinman- Roberts Environmental Research Archaeologists: A Scientific Consortium Los Angeles with sections by Rainer Berger and Pare Hopa BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT LIBRARY Denver, Colorado 88014680 Prepared for the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT California Desert Planning Program 3610 Central Avenue, Suite 402 Riverside, California 92506 Contract No. YA-512-CT8-106 ERIC W. RITTER GENERAL EDITOR Bureau of Land RIVERSIDE, CA Management Library 1980 Bldg. 50, Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 *•' FOREWORD Culture resource overviews such as this bring together much of the available information on prehistoric and historic peoples and present- day Native American groups along with their associated environments. The purpose behind these studies is to provide background information for the management of and research into these prehistoric, historic, and contemporary resources. This overview is one of seven covering the southern California deserts undertaken as part of a comprehensive planning effort by the Bureau of Land Management for these deserts. Overviews aid in the day-to-day management of cultural resources and in the completion of environmental analyses and research projects. Its general value to the public in the fields of education and recreation-interpretation must also be stressed.
    [Show full text]
  • National Register Nomination for the Security Trust Company
    NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION FOR THE SECURITY TRUST COMPANY BANK BUILDING A Project Presented to the faculty of the Department of History California State University, Sacramento Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in History (Public History) by Paul Rendes FALL 2016 © 2016 Paul Rendes ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION FOR THE SECURITY TRUST COMPANY BANK BUILDING A Project by Paul Rendes Approved by: __________________________________, Committee Chair Dr. Lee Simpson __________________________________, Second Reader Rebecca Bunse ____________________________ Date iii Student: Paul Rendes I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this project is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for the project. __________________________, Graduate Coordinator ___________________ Dr. Anne Lindsay Date Department of History iv Abstract of NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION FOR THE SECURITY TRUST COMPANY BANK BUILDING by Paul Rendes This project determines the eligibility of and establishes a historic context for the nomination of the Security Trust Company Bank Building to the National Register of Historic Places as a commercial building, with an accompanying nomination form. Sources of data used in this project include county assessor records, maps, historic and contemporary photographs, city and county histories, city directories, journal and newspaper articles, articles of incorporation, architectural plans, biographical texts, and contemporary literature on historic preservation and architectural history. The Security Trust Company Bank Building is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under Criteria A and C. Under Criterion A, the property is eligible for its association with the 1952 Bakersfield earthquake.
    [Show full text]
  • My Seventy Years in California, 1857-1927, by J.A. Graves
    My seventy years in California, 1857-1927, by J.A. Graves MY SEVENTY YEARS IN CALIFORNIA J. A. GRAVES MY SEVENTY YEARS IN CALIFORNIA 1857-1927 By J. A. GRAVES President Farmers & Merchants National Bank of Los Angeles Los Angeles The TIMES-MIRROR Press 1927 COPYRIGHT, 1927 BY J. A. GRAVES My seventy years in California, 1857-1927, by J.A. Graves http://www.loc.gov/resource/calbk.095 LOVINGLY DEDICATED TO MY WIFE ALICE H. GRAVES PREFACE Time flies so swiftly, that I can hardly realize so many years have elapsed since I, a child five years of age, passed through the Golden Gate, to become a resident of California. I have always enjoyed reading of the experiences of California pioneers, who came here either before or after I did. The thought came to me, that possibly other people would enjoy an account of the experiences of my seventy years in the State, during which I participated in the occurrences of a very interesting period of the State's development. As, during all of my life, to think has been to act, this is the only excuse or apology I can offer for this book. J. A. GRAVES. ix CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I FAMILY HISTORY. MARYSVILLE IN 1857. COL. JIM HOWARTH 3 II MARYSVILLE BAR IN 1857. JUDGE STEPHEN J. FIELD ITS LEADER. GEN. GEO. N. ROWE. PLACERVILLE BAR AN ABLE ONE 13 III FARMING IN EARLY DAYS IN CALIFORNIA. HOW WE LIVED. DEMOCRATIC CELEBRATION AT MARYSVILLE DURING THE LINCOLN-MCCLELLAN CAMPAIGN 25 IV SPORT WITH GREYHOUNDS. MY FIRST AND LAST POKER GAME 36 V MOVING FROM MARYSVILLE TO SAN MATEO COUNTY 39 VI HOW WE LIVED IN SAN MATEO COUNTY 43 VII BEGINNING OF MY EDUCATION 46 VIII REV.
    [Show full text]
  • Consultation and Coordination
    BARREN RIDGE RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CHAPTER 7: COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION CHAPTER 7: COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION 7.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter summarizes public and agency involvement activities undertaken by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP). These activities have been conducted for the Barren Ridge Renewable Transmission Project (BRRTP or Project) in order to satisfy California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements for public scoping and agency consultation and coordination. Federal agencies preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must “make diligent efforts to involve the public in preparing and implementing their NEPA procedures” (40 CFR 1506.6(a)). Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations provide guidance on the scoping process, including inviting participation of affected federal, state, and local agencies, Native American Tribes, as well as any other interested parties (40 CFR 1501.7(a)(1)). State CEQA Guidelines Section 15129 states that an “EIR [Environmental Impact Report] shall identify all federal, state, or local agencies, other organizations, and private individuals consulted in preparing the draft EIR.” USFS and BLM are the federal Lead Agencies pursuant to NEPA, and LADWP is the Lead Agency under CEQA. Appendix P of this Final EIS/EIR presents the distribution list that identifies the entities that received a copy of the Draft EIS/EIR. Consistent with the NEPA and CEQA procedures, public participation and agency consultation for this Project have been accomplished through issuance of public notices, public scoping meetings, and formal and informal consultation with agencies, stakeholders, landowners, and Native American Tribes.
    [Show full text]
  • Coordination and Consultation
    CHAPTER 7: COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION 7.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter summarizes public and agency involvement activities undertaken by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP). These activities have been conducted for the Barren Ridge Renewable Transmission Project (BRRTP or Project) in order to satisfy California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements for public scoping and agency consultation and coordination. Federal agencies preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must “make diligent efforts to involve the public in preparing and implementing their [NEPA] procedures” (40 CFR 1506.6 (a)). Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations provide guidance on the scoping process, including inviting participation of affected federal, state, and local agencies, Native American Tribes, as well as any other interested parties (40 CFR 15017.7 (a)(1)). State CEQA Guidelines Section 15129 states that an “EIR [Environmental Impact Report] shall identify all federal, state, or local agencies, other organizations, and private individuals consulted in preparing the draft EIR.” USFS and BLM are the federal Lead Agencies pursuant to NEPA, and LADWP is the Lead Agency under CEQA. Appendix P of this Draft EIS/EIR presents the distribution list that identifies the entities receiving a copy of this Draft EIS/EIR. Consistent with the NEPA and CEQA procedures, public participation and agency consultation for this Project have been accomplished through issuance of public notices, public scoping meetings, and formal and informal consultation with agencies, stakeholders, landowners, and Native American Tribes.
    [Show full text]
  • Records of the Tejon Ranch Company
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c8k361fb No online items Records of the Tejon Ranch Company Finding aid created by Sherman Library and Gardens staff using RecordEXPRESS Sherman Library and Gardens 614 Dahlia Ave. Corona del Mar, California 92625 (949) 673-1880 [email protected] http://www.slgardens.org/ 2019 Records of the Tejon Ranch 2019_02 1 Company Descriptive Summary Title: Records of the Tejon Ranch Company Dates: 1912-1945 Collection Number: 2019_02 Creator/Collector: Tejon Ranchos, Inc.Tejon Ranch Company Extent: 51 document boxes; 21 linear feet, 4 inches; 1 oversize folder; 169 photographs Repository: Sherman Library and Gardens Corona del Mar, California 92625 Abstract: The records of Tejon Ranch includes subject files, internal correspondence files, financial statements, tax files, lease files and photographs. The bulk of the records are from 1933 and later, although a few items date from the 1912 purchase of the ranch by Los Angeles investors. The subjects documented in the records include the governance of the ranch, including the records of the board of manager and board of directors, 1936 incorporation, and the issuance of bonds. The records also document daily operations of the ranch. Prominent subjects includes stock raising, farming, rights-of-way, historic Fort Tejon, hunting and flower viewing permits. Language of Material: English Access Collection is open for research Preferred Citation Records of the Tejon Ranch Company. Sherman Library and Gardens Biography/Administrative History Edward S. Beale, formed Tejon Ranch through the purchase of portions of four Mexican Land Grants – Rancho La Liebre, Rancho el Tejón, Rancho los Alamos y Agua Caliente, Rancho de Castac – the last being purchased in 1866.
    [Show full text]
  • Robinson V. Jewell
    FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAVID LAUGHING HORSE ROBINSON, No. 12-17151 an individual and Chairman, Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon; D.C. No. KAWAIISU TRIBE OF TEJON, 1:09-cv-01977- Plaintiffs-Appellants, BAM v. OPINION SALLY JEWELL, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior; TEJON MOUNTAIN VILLAGE, LLC; COUNTY OF KERN; TEJON RANCH CORPORATION; TEJON RANCHCORP, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Barbara McAuliffe, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted November 20, 2014—San Francisco, California Filed June 22, 2015 Before: Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Judge, and Stephen Reinhardt and Morgan Christen, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Chief Judge Thomas 2 ROBINSON V. JEWELL SUMMARY* Tribal Land Rights The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the claims of the Kawaiisu, a non-federally recognized Native American group, and its elected chairperson, David Laughing Horse Robinson, asserting title to the Tejon Ranch, one of the largest continuous expanses of private land in California. The panel held that the district court properly determined that the Tribe had no ownership interest in the Tejon Ranch and that no reservation was established. Specifically, the panel held that the district court correctly concluded that the Tribe’s failure to present a claim to the Board of Commissioners created by the California Land Claims Act of 1851 extinguished its title; that the Treaty with the Utah did not convey land rights to the signatory tribes or recognize aboriginal title; and that Treaty D was never ratified and conveyed no rights.
    [Show full text]
  • UNLOCKING VALUE OCTOBER 2018 TEJON RANCH HISTORY Safe Harbor Statement
    UNLOCKING VALUE OCTOBER 2018 TEJON RANCH HISTORY Safe Harbor Statement Statements in or accompanying this presentation that relate to or are based on plans, projections, expectations, assumptions, future events and results are forward-looking statements that involve a number of risks and uncertainties. Words such as “anticipates,” “expects,” “intends,” “plans,” “believes,” “seeks,” “estimates,” “may,” “will,” “should,” and their variations identify forward-looking statements. Many factors could affect Tejon Ranch Co.’s (“TRC”) actual results, and variances from TRC’s current expectations regarding such factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in these forward-looking statements. The potential risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, market and economic forces, availability of financing for land development activities, competition and success in obtaining various governmental approvals and entitlements for land development activities. For a detailed description of risks and uncertainties that could cause differences please refer to TRC’s periodic filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. TRC disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. Investors are cautioned not to unduly rely on these forward-looking statements. 3 Tejon Ranch at a Glance Diversified real estate development and agribusiness company operating in five business segments Large-scale master planned residential
    [Show full text]
  • A Case Review of an Indian Tribe's Claim to Aboriginal Land in California
    McAuliffe: Stolen or Lawful? A Case Review of an Indian Tribe’s Claim to Ab McAuliffe camera ready (Do Not Delete) 12/27/2018 10:11 AM CALIFORNIA WESTERN INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL VOLUME 49 FALL 2018 NUMBER 1 STOLEN OR LAWFUL? A CASE REVIEW OF AN INDIAN TRIBE’S CLAIM TO ABORIGINAL LAND IN CALIFORNIA HON. BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE* TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 2 I. THE PARTIES IN THE TRIBE’S CASE ............................................. 3 II. THE TRIBE’S CLAIMS TO THE LAND ........................................... 4 A. The Tribe’s Claims Regarding the Right to Occupy ...... 4 B. “Title” to the 270,000 Acres ........................................... 7 III. ABORIGINAL TITLE, THE ACT OF 1851, AND THE TREATY OF GUADALUPE HIDALGO ................................................. 8 A. Aboriginal Title ............................................................... 8 B. Overview of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the 1851 Act .................................................................. 9 C. Cases in Which American Indians Lost the Right of Occupancy Under the 1851 Act ..................... 10 D. The Kawaiisu Lost the Right to Occupy Under the 1851 Act ............................................................ 14 IV. TREATY WITH THE UTAH ........................................................ 15 ∗ Barbara A. McAuliffe is a United States Magistrate Judge for Eastern District of California and was appointed in October 2011. Judge McAuliffe presides over various types of civil cases randomly assigned to her with the parties’ consent, including business litigation, employment, class actions, excessive force civil rights, and other civil rights cases, including the case which is the subject of this article. 1 Published by CWSL Scholarly Commons, 2019 1 California Western International Law Journal, Vol. 49, No. 1 [2019], Art. 2 McAuliffe camera ready (Do Not Delete) 12/27/2018 10:11 AM 2 CALIFORNIA WESTERN INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL [Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Tejon Indian Tribe in 1934
    United States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR Washington, D.C. 20240 Memorandum To: Amy Dutschke, Regional Director, BIA Pacific Region Through: Kyle Scherer, Deputy Solicitor for Indian Affairs Eric N. Shepard, Associate Solicitor, Division of Indian Affairs John Hay, Acting Assistant Solicitor, Branch of Environment and Lands, Division of Indian Affairs From: Robert S. Hitchcock, Attorney-Advisor, Branch of Environment and Lands, Division of Indian Affairs Subject: Federal Jurisdiction Status of Tejon Indian Tribe in 1934 On August 24, 2016, the Tejon Indian Tribe (“Tejon Tribe” or “Tribe”) submitted an application to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”) requesting that the Secretary of the Interior (“Secretary”) acquire land in trust for the Tribe’s benefit (“Application”).1 The Tribe submitted its Application pursuant to Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act (“IRA”) 2 and its implementing regulations.3 This Opinion addresses the statutory authority of the Secretary to acquire land in trust for the Tribe pursuant to Section 5 of the IRA (“Section 5).4 Section 5 authorizes the Secretary to acquire land in trust for “Indians.” 5 Section 19 of the Act (“Section 19”) defines “Indian” to include several categories of persons.6 As relevant here, the first definition includes all persons of Indian descent who are members of “any recognized Indian tribe now under federal jurisdiction” (“Category 1”).7 In 2009, the United States Supreme Court (“Supreme Court”) in 1 See Letter, Tejon Indian Tribe to BIA Pacific Regional Office, Request to Take Land Into Trust, (Aug. 24, 2016) (The Tribe’s fee-to-trust Application contained a 19-page Introduction and 39 exhibits totaling over 300 pages).
    [Show full text]