Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08010/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08010-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:4321 Review of Agency Action-Environment

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1 The State of Arizona did not file a Reply brief in support of its motion.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

The Wilderness Society, Arizona

Wilderness Coalition, Sierra Club, Grand

Canyon Wildlands Council, and National

Trust for Historic Preservation,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

U.S. Bureau of Land Management; Ron

Wenker, in his official capacity as Acting

Director of U.S. BLM; James Kenna, in

his official capacity as BLM Arizona State

Director; Tom Edgerton, in his official

capacity as Grand Canyon-Parachant

National Monument Manager; Linda Price,

in Her Official Capacity as Vermilion

Cliffs National Monument Manager; and

Lorraine M. Christian, in Her Official

Capacity as Arizona Strip Field Manager,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 09-CV-08010-PCT-PGR

 ORDER

Currently before the Court is the Motion for Amicus Curiae Status (Doc. 42) filed by

the State of Arizona ex rel. the Arizona Game and Fish Commission and the Arizona Game

and Fish Department (hereinafter referred to as “the State of Arizona”). The motion is

briefed and ready for consideration.1

In its Motion, the State of Arizona asserts significant and unique interests in defending

its role in wildlife management in the Grand Canyon-Parashant and Vermillion Cliffs

Case 3:09-cv-08010-PGR Document 45 Filed 06/21/10 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

National Monuments. Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion, however they seek to limit the

State of Arizona’s participation to the remedy stage, such that the Court bifurcate briefing

of the merits of the case and briefing of the remedy of the case.

I. LEGAL STANDARD AND ANALYSIS

A district court has broad discretion to permit individuals or entities to participate in

a case as amici curiae. Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1260 (9th Cir. 1982). An amicus

curiae is not a party to the case. Miller-Wohl Co. v. Comm’r of Labor and Indus., 694 F.2d

203, 204 (9th Cir. 1982). Rather, the role of an amicus curiae is to provide assistance in a

case of general interest, supplement the efforts of counsel in the case, and draw the court’s

attention to legal arguments that have escaped consideration. Id.; Funbus Sys., Inc. v. Cal.

Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 801 F.2d 1120, 1125 (9th Cir. 1986).

The State of Arizona is responsible for administering state laws relating to wildlife.

A.R.S. § 17-201(A). It shares cooperative management responsibility with the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service for migratory, threatened, endangered, and candidate fish and wildlife

species in Arizona. The State of Arizona worked closely with the U.S. Bureau of Land

Management (“BLM”) and the National Park Service as a designated cooperating agency in

the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Arizona Strip, including the

revisions to the Arizona Strip Resource Management Plan, the Vermillion Cliffs National

Monument Resource Management Plan, and the Grand Canyon-Parashant Resource

Management Plan for the BLM portion and the General Management Plan for the National

Parks Service portion.

In its motion, the State of Arizona notes that, of particular concern is the request by

Plaintiffs for an injunction ordering the BLM to immediately close primitive roads and trails

to motorized and mechanized use within the Monuments. However, because all roads within

the Monuments are “primitive”, the State of Arizona’s ability to manage fish and wildlife

populations on the Monuments, including wildlife surveys, maintenance of water catchments

and wildlife law enforcement would be seriously compromised. The State of Arizona’s

Case 3:09-cv-08010-PGR Document 45 Filed 06/21/10 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

position and interests are unique and not represented by any parties thus far in the lawsuit.

The issues raised are significant and would bring to light matters unfamiliar to the Court.

Plaintiffs respond that they do not oppose the State of Arizona’s motion to participate

in this case as amicus curiae. However, they request that the Court limit its participation to

the remedy phase. Plaintiff’s argue that the State of Arizona is strictly concerned with the

injunctive relief sought by Plaintiffs, which would order BLM to close primitive roads and

trails to motorized use.

In reading the motion carefully, although it is the relief sought that is “of particular

concern” to the amicus (not unlike the other parties), that does not preclude an amicus from

participating in the merits portion of the lawsuit. The role of an amicus is to provide

assistance in matters of general interest and that bring light to legal considerations that the

Court would otherwise not have considered. Funbus Sys., Inc., 801 F.2d at 1125. The fact

that the ultimate remedy sought is of particular concern does not infer that there are no other

concerns or that nothing in the merits stage is implicated. More importantly, what is of

particular assistance to this Court is information regarding the specific interests of the State

of Arizona, which differ considerably to the parties and the other individual amicus curiae

in this case. More specifically, this Court seeks information from the State of Arizona

regarding the effect a ban on motorized travel would have on the State of Arizona’s statutory

obligations to conserve and protect fish and wildlife resources as a public trust responsibility

within the Monuments and the actual effect on the Monuments and wildlife. Such

considerations would not otherwise have been brought to this Court’s attention and the State

of Arizona is in a unique position to assist the Court in these maters. Moreover, the State of

Arizona was a cooperating agency in the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement

for the Arizona Strip, including the revisions to the Arizona Strip Resource Management

Plan, as well as the Monuments Resource Management Plan. The Court will not reserve

consideration of such significant matters until the remedy phase. These matters are global

and not confined to the remedy, despite the semantics proposed in the original motion.

Case 3:09-cv-08010-PGR Document 45 Filed 06/21/10 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

II. CONCLUSION

The Court will not bifurcate the briefing of this case. The State of Arizona will be

permitted to participate during the merits phase as it deems necessary to assist the Court. The

State of Arizona will not be permitted to introduce extra-record materials outside of the

administrative record prepared by the agencies, or to file pleadings, motions, or otherwise

participate in a manner reserved for the parties in the case. It may file responsive briefs

aimed at aiding the Court in analyzing relevant issues that have not been emphasized by the

parties. Based upon its special expertise, it may explain the potential impact of decisions on

a group, individuals, or on the Monuments and wildlife. It is prohibited from filing

duplicative arguments, as that will only serve to congest the court and waste valuable time

and resources. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED GRANTING the State of Arizona’s Motion for Amicus

Curiae Status. (Doc. 42.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the State of Arizona may file responsive briefs

according to a future briefing schedule.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that as stated in the previous scheduling order (Doc.

40), the parties and all amici and intervenors are to confer with each other, and within 7

days of this order, file a revised joint proposed briefing schedule for (1) challenges to the

administrative record and (2) summary judgment motions.

DATED this 21st day of June, 2010.

Case 3:09-cv-08010-PGR Document 45 Filed 06/21/10 Page 4 of 4