Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02509/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02509-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 05:551 Administrative Procedure Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Notwithstanding the fact that the parties have agreed on certain aspects of relief, defendants’

papers reserve the right to seek an appeal on the merits of the litigation and the relief ordered by the

Court.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, et

al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 03-2509 SI

ORDER AND INJUNCTION

REGARDING FINAL RELIEF

On March 14, 2006, the Court issued an order resolving the parties’ cross-motions for summary

judgment. The Court found that defendants Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) and U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (“FWS”) violated the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 et seq., the

National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq., and the Federal Land Policy

and Management Act (“FLPMA”), 43 U.S.C. §§ 1701 et seq., in taking actions related to the

management of the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area (“ISDRA”) and two threatened species that

live there, the desert tortoise and the Peirson’s milk-vetch. The Court requested further briefing from

the parties regarding the appropriate form of relief. After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs,

the record in this case, and the relevant law, the Court issues the following order.

Although the parties have agreed on certain aspects of relief,1

 they dispute whether the Court

should vacate the agency actions and documents at issue. Defendants argue that the Court should

exercise its discretion not to set aside the agency documents, and instead only remand those documents

for further consideration and reexamination consistent with the Court’s summary judgment order.

Case 3:03-cv-02509-SI Document 192 Filed 09/26/06 Page 1 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Defendants contend that portions of these documents are unaffected by the deficiencies identified by

the Court in its summary judgment order, and that the agencies should be permitted to continue

implementing those documents because they contain the most recent management prescriptions for the

ISDRA. Defendants also argue that the agencies will have more flexibility on remand if the Court does

not vacate the documents because, inter alia, the agencies could decide to supplement the documents

rather fully re-create the documents.

In contrast, plaintiffs contend that the Court should vacate the 2005 Record of Decision (“2005

ROD”), the 2003 ISDRA Recreation Area Management Plan (“2003 RAMP”), and the Final

Environmental Impact Statement (“FEIS”) in conjunction with the remand because vacatur is necessary

to ensure that the agencies take the required “hard look” at the issues on remand. Plaintiffs also assert

that, contrary to defendants’ representations, those portions of the agency documents which may appear

to be unrelated to the deficiencies addressed in the Court’s summary judgment may actually be

connected. For example, plaintiffs take issue with defendants’ assertion that vacatur would jeopardize

“significant projects and the funding budgeted for such projects (nearing 1 million dollars) which will

not affect sensitive resources in the Dunes”; plaintiffs argue that because the FEIS did not analyze the

impact of the RAMP on endemic invertebrates, there is no way of knowing whether those projects

would, in fact, impact sensitive resources in the Dunes. 

The Administrative Procedures Act provides that a court “shall hold unlawful and set aside

agency action . . . found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in

accordance with law” or “without observance of procedure required by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) &

(D); see also Alsea Valley Alliance v. Dep’t of Commerce, 358 F.3d 1181, 1185 (9th Cir. 2004)

(“Although not without exception, vacatur of an unlawful agency rule normally accompanies a

remand.”). Here, defendants have not made a sufficient showing to warrant deviation from the general

rule that unlawful agency actions are set aside and remanded. Although the Court is not unsympathetic

to the issues raised by defendants, the Court finds that vacatur of 2005 ROD and the FEIS is necessary

to allow the agencies to fully and meaningfully address the substantive and procedural flaws detailed

Case 3:03-cv-02509-SI Document 192 Filed 09/26/06 Page 2 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 The Court does not vacate the 2003 RAMP because plaintiffs did not directly challenge that

document. The parties agree that vacating the 2005 ROD renders the 2003 RAMP nonoperational. 

3

 Although defendant-intervenors originally argued that the Court should impose a 12 month

deadline for all actions, the intervenors’ reply states that they agree with defendants’ proposal, which

contains no deadlines.

4

 It is the Court’s understanding that the new ROD would be the final agency document created

on remand. If this understanding is incorrect – for example, if the new FEIS or the new critical habitat

rule is issued after the new ROD – injunctive relief would expire 90 days after the issuance of the last

agency document or rule.

3

in the Court’s summary judgment order.2 To the extent defendants wish to continue with certain

portions of the 2003 RAMP, such as the milk-vetch monitoring program, nothing in this order precludes

defendants from taking whatever steps are necessary to do so.

The parties also dispute whether the Court should impose any deadlines, as well as the

mechanism for termination of injunctive relief. As set forth below, the Court will impose a deadline for

critical habitat designation in light of the fact that the ESA places great importance on the timeliness

of this designation. See 16 U.S.C. § 1533(a)(3) (requiring agency to designate critical habitat

“concurrently” with listing of species).3

 With respect to termination of injunctive relief, the Court finds

it appropriate for all injunctive relief to expire 90 days after the issuance of the new Record of Decision.4

If, when this document is issued, plaintiffs or defendant-intervenors contend that the final agency

documents or rules are inadequate in any way, they may apply to this Court for relief. This Court will

address at that time whether such relief may be addressed or provided in this lawsuit, or whether such

claims must be raised in a separate proceeding.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED AND ENJOINED as follows:

1. BLM’s 2005 ROD approving the 2003 RAMP, and the FEIS for the 2003 RAMP, are

vacated and remanded, and the 2003 RAMP is remanded, to the BLM for further action

and consideration consistent with all applicable laws and with the Court’s March 14,

2006 Order. 

2. Those portions of the January 2005 Biological Opinion (“2005 BiOp”) for the 2003

RAMP prepared by the FWS relating to the Peirson’s milk-vetch are vacated and

remanded to FWS for further action and consideration consistent with all applicable laws

Case 3:03-cv-02509-SI Document 192 Filed 09/26/06 Page 3 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

and with the Court’s March 14, 2006 Order.

3. The Incidental Take Statement (“ITS”) authorizing take of the desert tortoise contained

in the 2005 BiOp is remanded to FWS for further action and consideration consistent

with all applicable laws and with the Court’s March 14, 2006 Order. Subject to the

following conditions BLM may rely upon the take exemption provided by the ITS

pending remand.

(a) BLM shall comply with all the Terms and Conditions of the ITS.

(b) BLM shall, within seven days of receipt or generation, provide plaintiffs and

defendant-intervenors copies of all correspondence with FWS generated pursuant

to Term and Condition 4.1 dealing with reported or observed injury or mortality

to any desert tortoise.

4. FWS’s exclusions of critical habitat pursuant to Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA, 16 U.S.C.

§ 1533(b)(2), in its Final Critical Habitat Rule, August 4, 2004, Designation of Critical

Habitat for Astralagus magdalene var. peirsonii (Peirson’s milk-vetch), 69 Fed. Reg.

47,330 (Aug. 4, 2004) (“Final Rule”), and accompanying economic analysis, are

remanded to FWS for further action and consideration consistent with all applicable laws

and with the Court’s March 14, 2006 Order. Pending the issuance of a new final critical

habitat rule on remand, the following conditions shall apply:

(a) The August 2004 Final Rule shall remain in full force and effect with all areas

currently designated as critical habitat remaining so designated pending the

completion of the new critical habitat rule.

(b) FWS shall submit a new final critical habitat rule to the Federal Register for

publication therein no later than February 1, 2008.

(c) FWS’s August 5, 2003 Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the Peirson’s

milk-vetch, 68 Fed. Reg. 46,143, shall be reinstated during the remand period

and shall remain effective pending the completion of a new critical habitat rule

or the issuance of a new proposed critical habitat rule for the Peirson’s milkvetch.

Case 3:03-cv-02509-SI Document 192 Filed 09/26/06 Page 4 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

5. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of the 2005 ROD, 2003 RAMP, or the FEIS,

BLM shall maintain the vehicle closures as identified in the “Temporary Closure of

Approximately 49,3000 Acres to Motorized Vehicle Use of Five Selected Areas in the

ISDRA,” 66 Fed. Reg. 53,431-02 (Oct. 22, 2001) (“Temporary Closure”). In

maintaining and enforcing the closures, BLM shall:

(a) provide continued public notification of closure areas by posting closure maps

at kiosks and public distribution of closure brochures and maps.

(b) provide written monthly reports to plaintiffs and defendant-intervenors

summarizing the results of observations from aerial overflights, if any,

summarizing visitation data, summarizing law enforcement compliance data

relating to closure violations, and summarizing data related to actions taken to

improve compliance with closures.

6. All injunctive relief shall expire 90 days after the Bureau’s issuance of a new ROD

approved after the completion of appropriate levels of land-use planning, environmental

analysis, and consultation pursuant to NEPA, FLPMA, and the ESA. See also note 4,

supra.

7. BLM and FWS shall provide plaintiffs and defendant-intervenors with copies of the

relevant final documents and file a Notice with this Court indicating that the documents

have been issued. Within 90 days of the filing of the Notice, plaintiffs and defendantintervenors may file a response, if any, to the Notice explaining why the terms of this

Order should continue. If no responses are filed to the Notice, this Order shall

automatically expire 90 days following the filing of the Notice. In the event plaintiffs

and/or defendant-intervenors object to the expiration of this Order, the Court will, as

appropriate, issue an order either terminating or amending this Order, setting a status

conference, and/or requesting further briefing. 

Case 3:03-cv-02509-SI Document 192 Filed 09/26/06 Page 5 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

6

///

Case 3:03-cv-02509-SI Document 192 Filed 09/26/06 Page 6 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

7

8. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Order and to hear any

motion for attorneys’ fees.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 25, 2006 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-02509-SI Document 192 Filed 09/26/06 Page 7 of 7