Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02241/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02241-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:4332 Environmental Policy - Coop of Agency Reports

---

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 - 10cv2241

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QUECHAN TRIBE OF THE FORT YUMA

INDIAN RESERVATION, a federally

recognized Indian Tribe,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10cv2241-LAB (CAB)

ORDER GRANTING

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

vs.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

THE INTERIOR, et al.,

Defendants.

On October 29, 2010, Plaintiff (the “Tribe”) filed its complaint, alleging Defendants’

decision to approve a solar energy project violated various provisions of federal law. On

November 12, the Tribe filed a motion for preliminary injunction, asking the Court to issue

an order to preserve the status quo by enjoining proceeding with the project, pending the

outcome of this litigation. After the motion was filed, Imperial Valley Solar LLC intervened

as a Defendant. 

On Monday, December 13, the Court held a oral argument at which the parties

appeared through counsel. After the parties were fully heard, the Court took the matter

under submission, with the intent to rule within two days.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:10-cv-02241-LAB-BGS Document 34 Filed 12/15/10 Page 1 of 26
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

 Although the two entities are obviously related, the briefing doesn’t explain the 1

relationship between Tessera and Imperial Valley Solar, except to say that Tessera applied

to develop the Imperial Valley Solar project.

 The final EIS, included as an exhibit to the Tribe’s motion, includes the BLM’s field 2

manager’s signature, the month and year, but no date. It was published in the July 28, 2010

Federal Register.

 This is included in the lodged partial administrative record, at PI 007347–007372. 3

While the table of contents refers to “invited signatory parties” and “concurring parties,” and

lists various appendices, the Programmatic Agreement is cut off immediately after the

signatures of federal and state officials. 

- 2 - 10cv2241

Background

 The Quechan Tribe is a federally-recognized Indian tribe whose reservation is located

mostly in Imperial County, California and partly in Arizona. A large solar energy project is

planned on 6500 acres of federally-owned land known as the California Desert Conservation

Area ("CDCA"). The Department of the Interior, as directed by Congress, developed a

binding management plan for this area.

The project is being managed by a company called Tessera Solar, LLC. Tessera 1

plans to install about 30,000 individual "suncatcher" solar collectors, expected to generate

709 megawatts when completed. The suncatchers will be about 40 feet high and 38 feet

wide, and attached to pedestals about 18 feet high. Support buildings, roads, a pipeline, and

a power line to support and service the network of collectors are also planned. Most of the

project will be built on public lands. Tessera submitted an application to the state of

California to develop the Imperial Valley Solar project. The project is planned in phases.

After communications among BLM, various agencies, the Tribe, and other Indian

tribes, a series of agreements, decisions, and other documents was published. The final EIS

was issued some time in July, 2010. At the same time, a Proposed Resource Management 2

Plan - Amendment, amending the Department of the interior’s CDCA was also published.

On September 14 and 15, certain federal and state officials, including BLM’s field manager,

executed a programmatic agreement (the “Programmatic Agreement”) for management of

the project. The Tribe objected to this. On October 4, 2010, Director of the Bureau of Land 3

Management Robert Abbey signed the Imperial Valley Record of Decision (“ROD”)

Case 3:10-cv-02241-LAB-BGS Document 34 Filed 12/15/10 Page 2 of 26
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 - 10cv2241

approving the project, and the next day Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar signed the

ROD. The ROD notice was published on October 13, 2010.

 The area where the project would be located has a history of extensive use by Native

American groups. The parties agree 459 cultural resources have been identified within the

project area. These include over 300 locations of prehistoric use or settlement, and ancient

trails that traverse the site. The tribes in this area cremated their dead and buried the

remains, so the area also appears to contain archaeological sites and human remains. The

draft environmental impact statement (“EIS”) prepared by the BLM indicated the project "may

wholly or partially destroy all archaeological sites on the surface of the project area.”

The Tribe believes the project would destroy hundreds of their ancient cultural sites

including burial sites, religious sites, ancient trails, and probably buried artifacts.

Secondarily, it argues the project would endanger the habitat of the flat-tailed horned lizard,

which is under consideration for listing under the Endangered Species Act and which is

culturally important to the Tribe. The Tribe maintains Defendants were required to comply

with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Historical Preservation Act

(NHPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) by making

certain analyses and taking certain factors into account deciding to go ahead with the

project. The Tribe now seeks judicial intervention under the Administrative Procedures Act

(APA).

Legal Standards

APA

The Court’s review of agency action under NEPA, NHPA, or FLPMA is governed by

the Administrative Procedures act. Under 5 U.S.C. § 706 the Court is directed to compel

agency action that has been unlawfully withheld, (§ 706(1)), and hold unlawful and aside

agency actions it finds to be "arbitrary, capricious, abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in

accordance with law" (§ 706(2)(A)), or "without observance of procedure required by law"

((§ 706(2)(D)). The burden is on the Tribe to show any decision or action was arbitrary and

capricious. Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 412 (1976).

Case 3:10-cv-02241-LAB-BGS Document 34 Filed 12/15/10 Page 3 of 26
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 - 10cv2241

Preliminary Injunctive Relief

The four-factor test for issuance of injunctive relief is set forth in Winter v. Natural

Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 374 (2008):

A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to

succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the

absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor,

and that an injunction is in the public interest. 

Even after Winter, the Court may also use a “sliding scale” approach. As explained

in Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, F.3d 1045, 1049–50 (9th Cir. 2010), "‘serious

questions going to the merits’ and a hardship balance that tips sharply toward the plaintiff

can support issuance of an injunction, assuming the other two elements of the Winter test

are also met." 

Here, the merits question is the most complex, and was the primary focus of briefing

and argument. The Court considers this question first.

Merits Discussion

The parties agree that, under NHPA Section 106 (16 U.S.C. § 470f) and its

implementing regulations, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is required to consult with

certain parties before spending money on or approving any federally-assisted undertaking

such as the project at issue here, and that the Tribe is one of those parties. The Tribe

maintains BLM didn’t adequately or meaningfully consult with them, but instead approved

the project before completing the required consultation. According to the Tribe, BLM simply

didn’t consider what the tribe had to say before approving the project.

The Court finds this to be the strongest basis for issuance of injunctive relief and

therefore focuses on it. 

NHPA Consultation Requirements

The NHPA’s purpose is to preserve historic resources, and early consultation with

tribes is encouraged “to ensure that all types of historic properties and all public interests in

such properties are given due consideration . . . .” Te-Moak Tribe v. U.S. Dept. of Interior,

608 F.3d 592, 609 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 16 U.S.C. § 470a(d)(1)(A)). The consultation

Case 3:10-cv-02241-LAB-BGS Document 34 Filed 12/15/10 Page 4 of 26
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

 The Tribe is a consulting party because it attaches religious and cultural significance 4

to the historic properties that may be affected by the project. The fact that the properties are

not on the Tribe’s own land doesn’t affect this status. 36 C.F.R. § 800.2(c)(2)(ii).

- 5 - 10cv2241

process is governed by 36 C.F.R. § 800.2(c)(2), one of Section 106's implementing

regulations. Under this regulation, “[c]onsultation should commence early in the planning

process, in order to identify and discuss relevant preservation issues . . . .”

§ 800.2(c)(2)(ii)(A). The Ninth Circuit has emphasized that the timing of required review

processes can affect the outcome and is to be discouraged. Id. (citing Pit River Tribe v. U.S.

Forest Serv., 469 F.3d 787, 785–86 (9th Cir. 2006). The consultation requirement is not an

empty formality; rather, it “must recognize the government-to-government relationship

between the Federal Government and Indian tribes” and is to be “conducted in a manner

sensitive to the concerns and needs of the Indian tribe.” § 800.2(c)(2)(ii)(C). A tribe may,

if it wishes, designate representatives for the consultation. Id.

The Section 106 process is described in 36 C.F.R. §§ 800.2–800.6. After preliminary

identification of the project and consulting parties, Section 106 requires identifying historic

properties within a project’s affected area, evaluating the project’s potential effects on those

properties, and resolving any adverse effects. The Tribe insists this consultation must be

completed at least for Phase 1 of the project, before construction begins.

Throughout this process, the regulations require the agency to consult extensively

with Indian tribes that fall within the definition of “consulting party,” including here the

Quechan Tribe. Section 800.4 alone requires at least seven issues about which the Tribe, 4

as a consulting party, is entitled to be consulted before the project was approved. Under

§ 800.4(a)(3), BLM is required to consult with the Tribe identify issues relating to the project’s

potential effects on historic properties. Under § 800.4(a)(4), BLM is required to gather

information from the Tribe to assist in identifying properties which may be of religious and

cultural significance to it. Under § 800.4(b), BLM is required to consult with the Tribe to take

steps necessary to identify historic properties within the area of potential effects. Under

§ 800.4(b)(1), BLM’s official is required to take into account any confidentiality concerns

raised by tribes during the identification process. Under § 800.4(c)(1), BLM must consult

Case 3:10-cv-02241-LAB-BGS Document 34 Filed 12/15/10 Page 5 of 26
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 - 10cv2241

with the Tribe to apply National Register criteria to properties within the identified area, if they

have not yet been evaluated for eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic

Places. Under § 800.4(c)(2), if the Tribe doesn’t agree with the BLM’s determination

regarding National Register eligibility, it is entitled to ask for a determination. And under

§ 800.4(d)(1) and (2), if BLM determines no historic properties will be affected, it must give

the Tribe a report and invite the Tribe to provide its views. Sections 800.5 and 800.6 require

further consultation and review to resolve adverse effects and to deal with failure to resolve

adverse effects.

Furthermore, under § 800.2, consulting parties that are Indian tribes are entitled to

special consideration in the course of an agency’s fulfillment of its consultation obligations.

This is spelled out in extensive detail in § 800.2(c). Among other things, that section sets

forth the following requirements:

(A) The agency official shall ensure that consultation in the section 106

process provides the Indian tribe . . . a reasonable opportunity to identify its

concerns about historic properties, advise on the identification and

evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and

cultural importance, articulate its views on the undertaking's effects on such

properties, and participate in the resolution of adverse

effects. . . . Consultation should commence early in the planning

process, in order to identify and discuss relevant preservation issues

and resolve concerns about the confidentiality of information on

historic properties.

(B) The Federal Government has a unique legal relationship with Indian

tribes set forth in the Constitution of the United States, treaties, statutes,

and court decisions. Consultation with Indian tribes should be

conducted in a sensitive manner respectful of tribal sovereignty. . . .

(C) Consultation with an Indian tribe must recognize the

government-to-government relationship between the Federal

Government and Indian tribes. The agency official shall consult with

representatives designated or identified by the tribal government . . . .

Consultation with Indian tribes . . . should be conducted in a manner

sensitive to the concerns and needs of the Indian tribe . . . .

(D) When Indian tribes . . . attach religious and cultural significance to

historic properties off tribal lands, section 101(d)(6)(B) of the act requires

Federal agencies to consult with such Indian tribes. . . in the section 106

process. Federal agencies should be aware that frequently historic

properties of religious and cultural significance are located on

ancestral, aboriginal, or ceded lands of Indian tribes . . . and should

consider that when complying with the procedures in this part. 

Case 3:10-cv-02241-LAB-BGS Document 34 Filed 12/15/10 Page 6 of 26
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 - 10cv2241

36 C.F.R. § 800.2(c)(2)(ii)(A)–(D) (emphasis added). The Tribe points out the significance

of the “confidentiality” provisions, citing Pueblo of Sandia v. United States, 50 F.3d 856,

861–62 (10th Cir. 1995) (noting that pueblo’s reticence to share information about cultural

and religious sites with outsiders was to be expected, and that federal government knew

tribes would typically not answer general requests for information).

The Ninth Circuit has emphasized that federal agencies owe a fiduciary duty to all

Indian tribes, and that at a minimum this means agencies must comply with general

regulations and statutes. Pit River Tribe v. U.S. Forest Serv., 469 F.3d 768, 788 (9th Cir.

2006). See also 36 C.F.R. § 800.2(c)(2)(ii)(B) (mentioning the “unique legal relationship”

between federal government and Indian tribes). Violation of this fiduciary duty to comply with

NHPA and NEPA requirements during the process of reviewing and approving projects

vitiates the validity of that approval and may require that it be set aside. Id.

Defendants, citing 36 C.F.R. § 800.14(b)(1)(ii), argue that “the execution of a

Programmatic Agreement completes the Section 106 process” (Opp’n to Mot. for Prelim.

Inj., 22:11–17) and is an acceptable way to resolve adverse effects from complex projects

"[w]hen effects on historic properties cannot be fully determined prior to approval of an

undertaking." (Id. at 9:10–11.) But this is true only if “executing” means “carrying out;”

merely entering into a programmatic agreement does not satisfy Section 106's consultation

requirements. 36 C.F.R. § 800.14(b)(2)(iii) (“Compliance with the procedures established

by an approved programmatic agreement satisfies the agency's section 106 responsibilities

for all individual undertakings of the program covered by the agreement . . . .”) The Tribe

asks that consultation be completed at least for phase 1 before the project begins. That

Defendants are resisting this suggests they are probably not prepared to do so.

The programmatic agreement must be negotiated in accordance with § 800.14(b),

which itself requires an extensive consultation process. § 800.14(f). The Tribe has also

argued a programmatic agreement is not authorized for this type of project.

Defendants are correct that under § 800.4(b)(2), identification of historic properties

can be deferred if "specifically provided for" in a programmatic agreement negotiated

Case 3:10-cv-02241-LAB-BGS Document 34 Filed 12/15/10 Page 7 of 26
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

- 8 - 10cv2241

pursuant to § 800.14(b). But this deferral is not indefinite, and entering into an appropriatelynegotiated programmatic agreement does not relieve the BLM of all responsibility. The

second half of § 800.4(b)(2) contemplates consultation on historic properties as it becomes

feasible:

The process should establish the likely presence of historic properties within

the area of potential effects for each alternative or inaccessible area through

background research, consultation and an appropriate level of field

investigation, taking into account the number of alternatives under

consideration, the magnitude of the undertaking and its likely effects, and the

views of . . . any other consulting parties. As specific aspects or locations of

an alternative are refined or access is gained, the agency official shall

proceed with the identification and evaluation of historic properties in

accordance with paragraphs (b)(1) and (c) of this section. 

In short, entering into an appropriately-negotiated programmatic agreement can result in

deferral of the consulting process, but it would only allow a temporary delay in consultation,

until it is feasible to identify and consult with the Tribe about the historic properties.

Compare Te-Moak, 608 F.3d at 610 (explaining that assessment of impact on environmental

resources could be deferred where drilling locations in mineral exploration project could not

reasonably be determined at the time of approval, but where plan required assessment as

drilling locations became known). 

Communications and Documentary Evidence

The Tribe’s Evidence and Arguments

In support of its point that Defendants failed to adequately consult, the Tribe cites its

letter to BLM’s Field Manager on February 4, 2010, in which it expressed concern that the

schedule for issuance of the ROD didn’t allow enough time for adequate consultation, and

that the required consultation was being inappropriate deferred. (Somerville Decl. in Supp.

of Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Ex. 5 at 273–75.) This letter says the Tribe had informally learned

that a Programmatic Agreement was being developed, which BLM intended to approve by

September, 2010. It also expressed the concern that, if the project were ultimately approved

in spite of the presence of cultural resources, the quick schedule wouldn’t allow enough time

for BLM to consult with the tribe to develop a plan to avoid harming the sites.

/ / /

Case 3:10-cv-02241-LAB-BGS Document 34 Filed 12/15/10 Page 8 of 26
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

- 9 - 10cv2241

By itself, this letter suggests the Tribe was consulted late in the planning process,

wasn’t being consulted when it wrote the letter, and was concerned about the lack of

consultation. It also suggests the time frame for consultation was compressed. The Tribe

also cites other later documents, showing that it expressed its dissatisfaction to the

Department.

At oral argument, the Tribe admitted BLM engaged in some communication and did

some consulting, but described the purported consulting as cursory and inadequate,

consisting mostly of informational meetings where the Tribe’s opinions were not sought,

rather than government-to-government consultation.

Defendants’ Evidence and Arguments

In response, Defendants provide string citations to materials in the record which they

say document “extensive consultation with tribes, including Plaintiff.” (Opp’n to Mot. for

Prelim. Inj. at 4:18–5:2. This description of the documents is general and cursory, and sheds

little light on the degree to which BLM consulted with the Tribe, or whether the consultation

was intended to comply with NEPA or NHPA. First, the documentation includes

consultations with other tribes, agencies, and with the public. While this other consultation

appears to be required and serves other important purposes, it doesn’t substitute for the

mandatory consultation with the Quechan Tribe. In other words, that BLM did a lot of

consulting in general doesn’t show that its consultation with the Tribe was adequate under

the regulations. Indeed, Defendants’ grouping tribes together (referring to consultation with

“tribes”) is unhelpful: Indian tribes aren’t interchangeable, and consultation with one tribe

doesn’t relieve the BLM of its obligation to consult with any other tribe that may be a

consulting party under NHPA. At oral argument, the Court inquired of Defendants about

consultation, but they were unable to be any more specific than they were in their briefing.

The partial administrative record was provided to the Court on CD-ROM, with the

documents numbered consecutively and also assigned page numbers (preceded by “PI”).

To determine whether these documents show BLM properly engaged in NHPA-required

consultation with the Tribe, the Court reviewed each of the documents Defendants cite. See

Case 3:10-cv-02241-LAB-BGS Document 34 Filed 12/15/10 Page 9 of 26
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

- 10 - 10cv2241

Opp’n at 4:18–5:2. But the Defendants should take note that as a matter of practice, it is

incumbent on them to explain the significance of exhibits they cite, rather than just citing

them with the expectation that the Court will sift through them. 

Furthermore, a significant number of the cited exhibits are duplicates or inapt. By

failing to weed out marginal, needless, or duplicate citations, Defendants create the

impression they are padding the record—perhaps because the evidence doesn’t favor them.

A final quibble. The briefing also mostly cites documents in the order they appear in

the record Defendants prepared. This blurs the chronology, which is obviously a critical

factor here. The documents are separately identified in a few instances, but in most cases

only a page range is given. For purpose of convenience, this order will treat each

undifferentiated citation to a page range as a single document, discuss the documents in the

order they are cited, and discuss the chronology later.

Documents Cited to Show Consultation

The first document cited to show consultation (PI 009213–009541) was a log by URS

Corporation, a private corporation Imperial Valley Solar, LLC retained to conduct

environmental investigation of the proposed project site. See Opp’n at 2:16–18 (identifying

URS). This doesn’t constitute NHPA consultation at all.

The second document is an appendix to the ROD identifying “consultation” with

various tribes. The subject matter of the consultation isn’t identified, and in some cases the

nature of the contact isn’t clear. But this summary is helpful in the sense that it shows the

chronology of BLM’s consultation with the Tribe. Some of the listed contacts were with

members of the Tribe, but these don’t appear to be designated representatives and therefore

consultation with them doesn’t constitute consultation with the Tribe for NHPA purposes.

Fourteen contacts with the Tribe’s president are listed, as follows:

1) A letter from BLM to the Tribe’s president on January 8, 2008

2) Another letter from BLM to the Tribe’s president on November 11, 2008

3) A follow-up call to the Tribe’s president on November 17, 2008

4) A follow-up call to the Tribe’s president on December 12, 2008

Case 3:10-cv-02241-LAB-BGS Document 34 Filed 12/15/10 Page 10 of 26
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

- 11 - 10cv2241

5) A letter from BLM to the Tribe’s president on November 6, 2009

6) A follow-up call or email from BLM to the Tribe’s president sometime from

November 21, 2009 to December 1, 2009

7) A letter from BLM to the Tribe’s president on January 15, 2010

8) A response letter from the Tribe to BLM on February 4

9) A letter from BLM to the Tribe’s president on March 11, 2010

10) A letter from BLM to the Tribe’s president on March 29, 2010.

11) A letter from BLM to the Tribe’s president on June 2, 2010

12) A letter from BLM to the Tribe’s president on June 24, 2010

13) A letter in response from the Tribe on August 4, 2010

14) A letter from BLM to the Tribe on August 18, 2010.

(Id., PI 000379, 000386.) Many of the documents included in this summary are cited later,

and this order discusses them below.

As part of this summary, thirty-one contacts with the Tribe’s historic preservation

officer are also recorded. (PI 000380, 000386.) The summary says this officer received the

same letters and follow-up calls as did the Tribe’s president, and had additional contact with

BLM. There is no showing the Tribe designated her as a contact for NHPA purposes,

though this summary counts her reply letters as replies from the Tribe. 

This summary is significant because it shows BLM’s early contact with the Tribe

consisted of a letter in January, 2008, a second letter in November, 2008 (and follow-up

calls), and a third letter (and follow-up calls) in December, 2009. The communication

apparently began in earnest with the January, 2010 letter, which prompted the Tribe’s

response letter discussed above.

The third cited document is a letter to the Tribe’s president and dated September 27,

2010. (PI 007345–007346.) This letter urges the Tribe to sign the Programmatic

Agreement, but doesn’t involve NHPA consultation.

The fourth cited document is actually two documents compressed together. First is

a letter to the Tribe’s president dated September 7, 2010. (PI 007374–007375.) It

Case 3:10-cv-02241-LAB-BGS Document 34 Filed 12/15/10 Page 11 of 26
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

 The summary included in the letter says the cultural resources inventory report for 5

the project has been “completed” and is included on a CD sent along with the letter. The

summary says 446 archaeological resources were identified, including 365 archaeological

sites and 81 isolated finds. This section also discusses a change to the project plan made

in 2008, to alleviate cultural resource concerns.

- 12 - 10cv2241

discusses NEPA consultation, and also invites the Tribe to a public informational meeting

to be held September 29, 2010. It also extends a general invitation: “The BLM would also

be glad to meet with your Tribe about the project or the topics of this letter[.]” The second

is a letter to the Tribe’s president dated August 18, 2010, responding to a complaint from the

Tribe. It outlines the dates it sent letters in the past, characterizes many of those letters as

invitations to consult, and contends the Tribe has been fully heard: “As a result of the tribal

consultation efforts for this project, BLM is fully aware of the Quechan Indian Tribe[‘]s issues

and concerns and these are being considered in the decision process.” (PI 007376.) It also

requests an opportunity for an archaeologist on the BLM staff to meet with the tribal council.

(PI 007377.)

The fifth cited document is a letter dated August 4, 2010 from the Tribe to Daniel

Steward, whom it identifies as the BLM’s “project lead.” This letter complains that the

consultation and review process is being rushed, and asks the BLM to arrange a time to

meet with the tribal council after it has had time to review the reports and maps depicting the

historical resources on the site.

The sixth cited document is a letter dated June 24, 2010 from the BLM to the Tribe’s

president. It invites consultation, invites the president to archaeological site visits led by

“cultural resource consultants” scheduled for the week of July 26, 2010, and provides an

update of a report by URS Corporation. The letter also discusses a past meeting, and 5

without further explanation informs the Tribe that the final Programmatic Agreement must

be prepared before the ROD is issued in September, 2010. The letter acknowledges the

Programmatic Agreement has been in preparation since December, 2009 and says all

comments on the proposed Programmatic Agreement must be received by June 25, the day

after the letter is dated.

/ / /

Case 3:10-cv-02241-LAB-BGS Document 34 Filed 12/15/10 Page 12 of 26
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

- 13 - 10cv2241

The letter invites the Tribe’s “assistance in identifying any places to which the Tribe

may attach religious or cultural significance which could be affected by the proposed project

as well as how the project may affect those places.” (PI 008156.) It again invites the Tribe

to contact the BLM’s archaeologist or “point or contact.”

The seventh cited document consists of multiple letters spanning 40 pages. The first

is a letter to the Tribe’s president dated March 29, 2010. It expresses the desire to “continue

our efforts to inform and consult with your Tribe” pursuant to NHPA. It explains roughly

where the project will be located, mentions that it may include construction of roads, building,

a pipeline, and a transmission line, as well as installation of the solar collectors. The letter

refers to a group meeting in December, 2009 at which it discussed the need to prepare the

Programmatic Agreement. It informs the Tribe that the project might not be able to avoid all

historic properties eligible for listing on the National Register, and asks the Tribe to review

and offer its suggestions on the proposed Programmatic Agreement listed as an enclosure.

It asks the Tribe to return comments by “May, 2009" [sic] and says another draft will be

provided for the Tribe’s review later. (PI 009656.) Finally, the letter invites the Tribe to

participate in a meeting to discuss comments on the draft agreement.

The seventh document’s second letter is addressed to the Tribe’s president and is

dated March 11, 2010. It includes much of the same information as was included in the

March 29 letter, but primarily addresses the draft environmental impact statement (“DEIS”).

It also invites the Tribe to a workshop and public meeting on the DEIS, and to a conference

and hearing by the California Energy Commission. As part of the discussion of the DEIS,

the letter represents that it includes preliminary results of the cultural resources studies, “with

sufficient detail to identify the potential impacts that the proposed project would have on

cultural resources.” (PI 009687.) Finally, the letter invites consultation on the Programmatic

Agreement, issues a general invitation “to initiate or continue government-to-government

consultation for this project pursuant to all relevant laws including Section 106,” and again

invites the Tribe to call the BLM archaeologist or “point of contact” for information. (PI

009688.)

Case 3:10-cv-02241-LAB-BGS Document 34 Filed 12/15/10 Page 13 of 26
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 “Solar Two” is defined in the letter cited next, the November 6, 2009 letter. It was 6

apparently the working name for the project at issue here.

- 14 - 10cv2241

The seventh document’s third letter, addressed to the Tribe’s president, is dated

January 15, 2010. This letter informs the Tribe that Tessera Solar has submitted an

application for a right-of-way to develop the project. (This was apparently the Tribe’s first

notification that an application had been submitted.) The letter gives the same general

description of the proposed project and invites the Tribe to a public informational meeting

to follow up on the informational meeting it held in December, 2009. This letter also gives

tentative dates for issuance of certain documents, including the final environmental impact

statement. It tells the Tribe “we must have a finalized [Programmatic Agreement] before the

Record of Decision is signed on the Solar Two project. The Record of Decision is planned 6

for September 2010.” (PI. 009689.) 

The seventh document’s fourth letter is addressed to the Tribe’s president and is

dated November 6, 2009. It too makes general mention of the project and informs the Tribe

that Tessera Solar has applied for a right-of-way to develop a solar energy facility. This letter

invites the tribe to a “cultural resources information and Programmatic Agreement

coordination meeting,” and “once again extend[s] an invitation to initiate or continue

government-to-government consultation and Section106 consultation pursuant to the

National Historic Preservation Act and other applicable laws and regulations.” (PI 009690.)

The letter discusses environmental review, then goes on to discuss the requirements

imposed by Section 106. It also gives a general warning:

As the proposed project may not be able to avoid all historic properties,

regulations implementing the National Historic Preservation Act require that

the lead agency (i.e. BLM) prepare an agreement document in consultation

with [certain tribes, agencies, and the public]. The Programmatic

Agreement . . . will outline the manner in which the BLM will take into

account the effects of the proposed project and conclude its responsibilities

under Section 106.

(PI 009691.) The letter then invites the Tribe to participate in a “cultural resources

information meeting and project site tour” on December 4, 2009. The letter says this

meeting “will also provide an opportunity for the Tribe to participate as a consulting party in

Case 3:10-cv-02241-LAB-BGS Document 34 Filed 12/15/10 Page 14 of 26
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

- 15 - 10cv2241

the development of the [Programmatic Agreement].” This letter includes maps showing the

outlines of the project area.

The eighth document consists of two letters. The first is dated November 11, 2008

and is addressed to the Tribe’s president. This letter informs the Tribe an application for a

right-of-way has been submitted for a solar project, gives general information about the

project, and invites the Tribe to a public informational meeting. Maps and general

descriptions of the proposed project are attached. The second is dated January 8, 2008.

It’s similar to the November 11 letter, but includes less information. It invites the Tribe to

contact the BLM’s two “points of contact.”

The ninth document consists of six letters from the Tribe’s historical preservation

officer and president to BLM. The first is a brief letter from the historic preservation officer

dated February 19, 2008 informing BLM the project area is within the Tribe’s historic use

area, and requesting more information, a survey, and a meeting. The remaining letters are

much more recent, The earliest is dated February 4, 2010. Like the letters that follow, it

raises the Tribe’s complaints about the review process. For example, the letters point to the

limited schedule, request additional time, and object that a Programmatic Agreement isn’t

appropriate or provided for under applicable regulations. Later letters raise objections to the

draft Programmatic Agreement, and insist that the BLM engage in the process outlined in

36 C.F.R. § 800.4 et seq. The letters also identify various legal authority the Tribe believes

BLM is disobeying or undermining, and ask BLM to provide them with information about the

project so they can review it before the BLM-imposed deadlines pass. The remaining letters

are specific in their objections. The final letter in this series, dated August 4, 2010,

complained that although the Tribe requested a copy of the cultural report in 2008, BLM only

provided a copy in early July, 2010. The letter asks BLM to arrange a time to meet with the

tribal council on the reservation, and says the required Section 106 consultation can’t begin

until the Tribe has time to review the report.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:10-cv-02241-LAB-BGS Document 34 Filed 12/15/10 Page 15 of 26
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

- 16 - 10cv2241

Supplemental String Citations

After this, Defendants say “BLM’s consultation with Plaintiff, in which URS assisted,

included many letters, meetings (both with Plaintiff alone and including one or more other

tribes), site visits and telephone conversations. Their brief provides a string cite to 32

separate page ranges without individual explanation. Many of the references are either

repetitions of the earlier citations, or duplicates of those documents. The Court will discuss

those documents below, but only the ones that are not repeat citations or duplicates. 

The first non-duplicate supplemental citation (PI 009261) is a letter from URS to the

Tribe’s president, dated February 28, 2008, providing a map and requesting information

about cultural resources that might be affected by the project.

The second (PI 009265) is a similar letter someone named Preston Arrow-weed but

otherwise unidentified.

The third (PI 009273) is a letter from the Tribe’s historic preservation officer, dated

March 17, 2008, re-forwarding her letter of February 19th, 2008.

The fourth (PI 009327) is a letter from Preston Arrow-weed, who apparently is a

member of the Tribe, to the Imperial County Board of Supervisors.

The fifth (PI 009476–009482) is a letter from the Tribe’s historic preservation officer

to the BLM’s archaeologist, dated May 4, 2010 and objecting that the draft Programmatic

Agreement is inconsistent with Section 106's consulting requirements. This letter also

objects that the consultation up to that point has been inadequate and cites portions of

Section 106 and its regulations the Tribe believes BLM has been failing to comply with.

Finally, the letter includes specific comments on the draft Programmatic Agreement. This

letter repeats many of the complaints raised in the other letters.

The sixth (PI 009508–009509) is a letter from BLM to the Tribe’s president, dated

June 2, 2010, inviting the Tribe to a general informational meeting. The revised

Programmatic Agreement is listed as an enclosure, and the letter solicits comments on it.

PI 009526–009527 is a letter from the Tribe’s historic preservation officer to BLM’s “point of

contact,” dated June 4, 2010. The letter says the officer attended an update meeting the day

Case 3:10-cv-02241-LAB-BGS Document 34 Filed 12/15/10 Page 16 of 26
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

- 17 - 10cv2241

before where she was told the cultural report for the project had not yet been completed.

The letter complains that it is impossible for the Tribe to consult on cultural resources issues

until it has been provided with basic information about what cultural resources the project

might affect. The letter also reiterates the officer’s request for a map showing where the

cultural resources are located, and complains that the points out the number of cultural

resources has fluctuated repeatedly. For example, the letter says the Tribe was told on May

25 there were 361 cultural resources in the project area, but the latest count (as of June 4)

was 442. The letter asks BLM to revise the timeline to allow for adequate consultation and

review.

The seventh (PI 009528–009533) is a letter from the Tribe’s historic preservation

officer to BLM’s archaeologist, dated June 14, 2010, objecting to various points in the draft

Programmatic Agreement.

The eighth (PI 010249–1010251) is a meeting summary for a group presentation to

attendees from several tribes on September 29, 2010. Lorey Cachora, a member of the

Tribe, is shown in attendance but no representatives from the Tribe’s government. The

minutes of the meeting show that the Programmatic Agreement had been signed by federal

agencies and would be forwarded to tribes for their signatures, with the explanation that the

tribes’ assent would mean nothing more than that they wished to be consulted about the

project.

The ninth (PI 010290–10293) is notes from a site visit on July 29 through 31, 2010.

A person from the Tribe, Manfred Scott, was in attendance on July 29 but his role is not

otherwise explained. The notes also show Preston Arrow-weed attended the visit on both

the 29th and 30th, and was shown a map of all cultural sites along an ancient shoreline he

inquired about.

The tenth (PI 010294–010312) is notes from a meeting on June 16, 2010. Several

members of the Tribe and its historic preservation officer are shown as attending either in

person or telephonically. The notes show tribal members complaining about inadequate

/ / /

Case 3:10-cv-02241-LAB-BGS Document 34 Filed 12/15/10 Page 17 of 26
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

- 18 - 10cv2241

notice of the meeting, the approval process being rushed, and the lack of a report. The

notes also show discussion of some sites and archaeological finds.

The eleventh (PI 010313–010320) is notes from a meeting on May 18, 2010, at which

the Tribe’s historic preservation officer appeared telephonically. The meeting concerned

drafting of the Programmatic Agreement.

The twelfth (PI 010321–010328) is notes from a meeting on May 4, 2010 at which the

Tribe’s historic preservation officer and two members of the Tribe appeared. This meeting

appears to be a status update, and focuses on the development of the Programmatic

Agreement. The notes show the cultural resources inventory hadn’t been completed.

Historical resources were discussed to some extent, and the number was set at 350. Some

specifics about the projects and impact mitigation were discussed. Attendees also objected

that they didn’t have a map of the site, and complained that the informational meetings being

held weren’t consultation as required under Section 106.

The thirteenth (PI 010329–010337) is an agenda, sign-in sheet, and notes from a

general meeting on December 4, 2009 at which several members of the Tribe attended. The

record doesn’t show any official representative of the Tribe attended.

The fourteenth (PI 010338–010340) is photocopied notes on a steno pad. The import

of this is unclear but it seems to concern a meeting in August, 2008 with the Tribe’s historic

preservation officer.

The fifteenth (PI 010341–010342) is more photocopied notes on a steno pad, dated

in July, 2009. Apparently it concerns some kind of meeting with members of the Tribe.

Finally, Defendants cite to paragraphs 6 through 10 of the declaration of Rebecca Apple in

support of their opposition. This portion of her declaration attests to her preparation of

certain reports, and meetings and visits with members of tribes generally Ms. Apple’s only

recorded meeting with designated representatives of the Tribe occurred on October 16,

2010.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:10-cv-02241-LAB-BGS Document 34 Filed 12/15/10 Page 18 of 26
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

- 19 - 10cv2241

Analysis of Documentary Evidence

Preliminarily, several points bear noting. First, the sheer volume of documents is not

meaningful. The number of letters, reports, meetings, etc. and the size of the various

documents doesn’t in itself show the NHPA-required consultation occurred.

Second, the BLM’s communications are replete with recitals of law (including Section

106), professions of good intent, and solicitations to consult with the Tribe. But mere pro

forma recitals do not, by themselves, show BLM actually complied with the law. As discussed

below, documentation that might support a finding that true government-to-government

consultation occurred is painfully thin.

At oral argument, the Tribe described the meetings as cursory information sessions

and the reports and other communications as inadequate. Its briefing also argues that

Defendants have confused “contact” with required “consultation.” Defendants In response,

Defendants argue that the Tribe "has been invited to government-to-government

consultations since 2008" "BLM began informing the Tribe of proposed renewable energy

projects within the California Desert District as early as 2007," and "[s]ince that time BLM has

regularly updated the Tribe on the status of the [Imperial Valley Solar] project." (Opp'n,

5:26-6:3.)

The Tribe’s first document contact with BLM was the tribal historical preservation

officer’s letter of February 19, 2008. That letter put BLM on notice that the historical and

cultural sites within the project area would be considered important to the Tribe. It also

asked BLM to provide a survey of the area and to meet with the Tribe’s government, which

would have constituted government-to-government consultation. BLM could not have

provided the survey at that time, and apparently also didn’t comply with the meeting request,

because the historic preservation officer re-sent the letter the next month. In fact, the

documentary evidence doesn’t show BLM ever met with the Tribe’s government until

October 16, 2010, well after the project was approved. All available evidence tends to show

BLM repeatedly said it would be glad to meet with the Tribe, but never did so.

/ / /

Case 3:10-cv-02241-LAB-BGS Document 34 Filed 12/15/10 Page 19 of 26
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

- 20 - 10cv2241

Although BLM invited the Tribe to attend public informational meetings about the

project, the invitations do not appear to meet the requirements set forth in 36 C.F.R.

§ 800.2(c)(2)(ii). This is particularly true because the Tribe first requested a more private,

closed meeting between BLM and its tribal council. In later communications, the Tribe

continued to request that BLM meet with its tribal council on the Tribe’s reservation. In

addition, the Tribe repeatedly complained that the properties hadn’t been identified, and

asked for a map showing where the identified sites were, requests that apparently went

unanswered at least as late as June, 2010. The Tribe’s letter of August 4, 2010 apparently

acknowledges receipt of maps, but asks for an extension of the deadline so it could review

them before responding.

The documentary evidence also confirms the Tribe’s contention that the number of

identified sites continued to fluctuate. Compare, e.g., PI 008155 (BLM letter dated June 24,

2010 setting number of cultural sites in the project area at 446) and PI 00993 (Final EIS,

stating Class III inventory identified 459 cultural sites). And Defendants have admitted the

evaluation of sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register hasn’t yet been completed.

BLM’s invitation to “consult,” then, amounted to little more than a general request for

the Tribe to gather its own information about all sites within the area and disclose it at public

meetings. Because of the lack of information, it was impossible for the Tribe to have been

consulted meaningful as required in applicable regulations. The documentary evidence also

discloses almost no “government-to-government” consultation. While public informational

meetings, consultations with individual tribal members, meetings with government staff or

contracted investigators, and written updates are obviously a helpful and necessary part of

the process, they don’t amount to the type of “government-to-government” consultation

contemplated by the regulations. This is particularly true because the Tribe’s government’s

requests for information and meetings were frequently rebuffed or responses were extremely

delayed as BLM-imposed deadlines loomed or passed. 

No letters from the BLM ever initiate government-to-government contact between the

Tribe and the United States or its designated representatives, the BLM field managers

Case 3:10-cv-02241-LAB-BGS Document 34 Filed 12/15/10 Page 20 of 26
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

- 21 - 10cv2241

Margaret Goodro, Vicki Wood, or acting field manager Daniel Steward. Rather, the Tribe

was invited to attend public informational meetings or to consult with two members of her

staff, an archaeologist and a person identified only as a “point of contact.” The BLM in fact

rebuffed the Tribe’s August 4 request that the BLM meet with the tribal council on its

reservation, proposing instead that the tribal council call BLM staff.

The Tribe also repeatedly protested it was not being given enough time or information

to consider the Programmatic Agreement, a matter it was also entitled to be consulted about.

The letters sent to the Tribe’s president make clear BLM had determined a programmatic

agreement would be used and would be entered into no later than September, 2010. The

Tribe’s letter of February 4, 2010 suggests the Tribe had discovered on its own that BLM

was already drafting the Programmatic Agreement. Furthermore, BLM insisted that

consulting parties send their suggestions in writing. The Tribe’s requests to consult about

the Programmatic Agreement were obviously not granted.

Defendants have emphasized the size, complexity, and expense of this project, as

well as the time limits, and the facts are sympathetic. Tessera hoped to qualify for stimulus

funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 by beginning

construction no later than the end of this year, which is about two weeks away. To that end,

BLM apparently imposed deadlines of its own choosing. Section 106's consulting

requirements can be onerous, and would have been particularly so here. Because of the

large number of consulting parties (including several tribes), the logistics and expense of

consulting would have been incredibly difficult. None of this analysis is meant to suggest

federal agencies must acquiesce to every tribal request. 

That said, government agencies are not free to glide over requirements imposed by

Congressionally-approved statues and duly adopted regulations. The required consultation

must at least meet the standards set forth in 36 C.F.R. § 800.2(c)(2)(ii), and should begin

early. The Tribe was entitled to be provided with adequate information and time, consistent

with its status as a government that is entitled to be consulted. The Tribe’s consulting rights

should have been respected. It is clear that did not happen here.

Case 3:10-cv-02241-LAB-BGS Document 34 Filed 12/15/10 Page 21 of 26
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

- 22 - 10cv2241

The Court therefore determines the Tribe is likely to prevail at least on its claim that

it was not adequately consulted as required under NHPA before the project was approved,.

Because the project was approved “without observance of procedure required by law,” the

Tribe is entitled to have the BLM’s actions set aside under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D).

Merits Analysis of Other Claims

The evidence shows, and the parties do not dispute, that the planned project is

extensive. The size and number of sun-catchers, not to mention roads, buildings, and other

supporting infrastructure, ensures this will be a massive project. The undisputed evidence

also shows the 459 historic properties extend from one end of the area to the other, so some

type of impact on the properties is likely. In fact, phase 1 of the plan acknowledges that one

such property will be adversely impacted; because of the property’s size, power lines cannot

span it, and one power pole must be installed on the property.

The Court therefore holds the FLPMA claim at least raises “serious questions” for

purposes of injunctive relief.

The substance of the NEPA claim is less clear. Extensive environmental review has

been conducted, so the chance that this project will harm the flat-tailed horned lizard

appears to be reduced. At the same time, the Tribe was entitled to be consulted under

NEPA as under NHPA, and its claims in this respect also raise “serious questions.”

Remaining Injunctive Relief Analysis

Having determined that the Tribe is likely to succeed on the merits, at least as to its

claim that required NHPA consulting must be completed before phase 1 of the project

begins, the Court turns to the remaining Winter factors. 

Irreparable Harm

To obtain preliminary injunctive relief, the Tribe must show it is likely to suffer

irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief. Winter, 129 S.Ct. at 374. Winter

emphasizes that the mere possibility of irreparable harm isn’t enough; such harm must be

likely. Id. at 375–76. This is the easiest and most straightforward part of the inquiry,

because the Court finds it is very likely the Tribe will suffer irreparable harm. 

Case 3:10-cv-02241-LAB-BGS Document 34 Filed 12/15/10 Page 22 of 26
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

- 23 - 10cv2241

The parties agree there are hundreds of known historical sites on the land, and the

Tribe attaches cultural and religious significance to many if not most of these. Hundreds of

these sites have been identified as prehistoric, and many contain human remains. Damage

to or destruction of any of them would constitute irreparable harm in some degree. Second,

if the tribe hasn't been adequately consulted and the project goes ahead anyway, this

legally-protected procedural interest would effectively be lost. See Save Strawberry Canyon

v. Dep’t of Energy, 613 F. Supp. 2d 1177, 1187 (N.D.Cal.2009) (finding that, due to the

alleged NEPA violations, the plaintiff was "virtually certain to suffer irreparable procedural

injury absent an injunction") (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 572 & n.7

(1992)).

The briefing didn't focus extensively on the risk of specific damage, but the massive

size of the project and the large number of historic properties and incomplete state of the

evaluation virtually ensures some loss or damage. The Tribe has pointed out that the

project would not avoid most of the 459 sites. (Reply to Opp’n, 9:22-24 (citing Defendants’

declarations that only 4 of 73 sites in phase 1 and 39 of 203 sites in phase 2 would be

avoided)). And, as discussed, phase 1 would involve damage to at least one known site.

The Court therefore finds this key requirement is easily met, and turns to the

remaining two Winter factors.

Balance of Equities

To obtain injunctive relief under Winter, the Tribe must establish the balance of

equities tips in its favor. 129 S.Ct. at 374. Winter also refers to this as the “balance of

hardships” inquiry. 

Here, Defendants held most of the power—including the power to control the timing

of the project and the review process. Their briefing mentions that as early as 2007 they

notified the Tribe of interest in developing the area for solar power generation, and the

project was being planned at least as early as January, 2008. In February, 2008, BLM was

put on notice it needed to consult with the Tribe. BLM imposed requirements deadlines on

consulting parties, including the Tribes. For example, it determined unilaterally that a

Case 3:10-cv-02241-LAB-BGS Document 34 Filed 12/15/10 Page 23 of 26
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

- 24 - 10cv2241

programmatic agreement would be used, and would be adopted no later than September,

2010. BLM set deadlines and determined the timing and format of meetings. Defendants

were therefore in the best position to work out scheduling problems, and the Tribe had

almost no power in this respect. 

The Ninth Circuit has emphasized that consultation with tribes must begin early, and

that if consultation begins after other parties may have invested a great deal of time and

money, the other parties may become entrenched and inflexible, and the government

agency may be inclined to tolerate degradation it would otherwise have insisted be avoided.

Te-Moak Tribe, 608 F.3d at 609. This appears to be happening here. While the Court is

sympathetic to the problems Defendants face, the fact that they are now pressed for time

and somewhat desperate after having invested a great deal of effort and money is a problem

of their own making and does not weigh in their favor.

It bears considering, too, that two of the Defendants are Secretary of the Interior

Salazar and BLM, who represent part of the United States government, and that Congress

and the Department of the Interior created the requirements that Defendants are finding so

onerous. Congress and, to a lesser extent, the Department of the Interior could have made

these consulting requirements less stringent, but they didn’t. Congress could also have

exempted renewable energy projects such as this from the Section 106 review process, but

didn’t. Congress could also extend ARRA project deadlines for this project but hasn’t,

though, it was conceded at argument, Congress still might do so.

The Court is mindful that Defendants face hardships as well. For example, Imperial

Valley Solar has already spent millions of dollars preparing this project, and faces difficulties

obtaining investment and financing if the project is held up. Even so, the Court finds the

balance of equities tips heavily in the Tribe’s favor.

Public Interest

The final step in the Winter analysis requires the Court to consider whether a

preliminary injunction is in the public interest. 129 S.Ct. at 374. Obviously there are many

competing interests here. The interests the Tribe urges the Court to consider involve historic

Case 3:10-cv-02241-LAB-BGS Document 34 Filed 12/15/10 Page 24 of 26
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

- 25 - 10cv2241

and cultural preservation, in this case of hundreds of prehistoric sites and other sites whose

significance has yet to be completely evaluated. The Tribe itself is a sovereign, and both it

and its members have an interest in protecting their cultural patrimony. The culture and

history of the Tribe and its members are also part of the culture and history of the United

States more generally.

The value of a renewal energy project of this magnitude to the public is also great.

It provides the public with a significant amount of power while reducing pollution and

dependence on fossil fuels. As Defendants point out, it is a goal of the federal government

and the state of California to promote the development of such projects. Current federal

policy as embodied in ARRA also favors the undertaking of projects of this time, as a way

of creating jobs and stimulating the economy.

That being said, the Court looks to the statutes enacted by Congress rather than to

its own analysis of desirable priorities in the first instance. See, e.g., Marshall v. Barlow’s,

Inc., 436 U.S. 307, 331 (1978) (refusing to question Congress’ weighing of interests when

enacting statute); Salazar v. Buono, 130 S.Ct. 1803, 1828 (2010) (Scalia, J., concurring in

the judgment) (“Federal courts have no warrant to revisit [Congress’ decision about what is

in the public interest]—and to risk replacing the people’s judgment with their own. . . .”).

Here, in enacting NHPA Congress has adjudged the preservation of historic properties and

the rights of Indian tribes to consultation to be in the public interest. Congress could have,

but didn’t, include exemptions for renewable energy projects such as this one. And, as

pointed out, Congress could determine this particular project is in the public interest and

sweep aside ARRA deadlines as well as requirements under NHPA, NEPA, and FLPMA to

get it built. But because Congress didn’t do that, and instead made the determination that

preservation of historical properties takes priority here, the Court must adopt the same view.

Alternate Basis for Injunctive Relief

As an alternative basis for the Court’s decision, Alliance for Wild Rockies, 622 F.3d

at1049–50 authorizes the granting of preliminary injunctive relief on a showing of "‘serious

questions going to the merits' and a hardship balance that tips sharply toward the plaintiff

Case 3:10-cv-02241-LAB-BGS Document 34 Filed 12/15/10 Page 25 of 26
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

- 26 - 10cv2241

. . ., assuming the other two elements of the Winter test are also met." The "likelihood of

irreparable harm" factor is required, and is particularly emphasized. Id. at 1052.

As noted, the procedural NEPA claim and the substantive claim under FLPMA raise

“serious questions going to the merits.” For the reasons just discussed, the Court also finds

the hardship balance tips sharply towards the Tribe, and the other two Winter factors are

also met. The most important of these factors, the likelihood of irreparable harm, is the

clearest and most obvious. For these reasons, the Court holds either of these would also

serve as an adequate basis for the grant of preliminary injunctive relief.

Conclusion and Order

For these reasons, the Tribe’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief is GRANTED.

No later than Friday, December 17, 2010, the Tribe shall lodge by email a proposed order

temporarily enjoining the project. See Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and

Procedures Manual for this District, § 2(h). The proposed order shall be in editable format

and Defendants shall be copied on the email.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 15, 2010

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-02241-LAB-BGS Document 34 Filed 12/15/10 Page 26 of 26