Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04736/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04736-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 16:1538 Endangered Species Act

---

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

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited.

Case No. C 04-4736 JF

ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' SECOND CLAIM

(JFLC1)

**E-Filed 2/24/06**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 04-4736 JF

ORDER1 RE PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND

CLAIM

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity and California Native Plant Society filed the

above-entitled action on November 9, 2004, alleging two claims for relief against Bureau of Land

Management (“BLM”) and Mike Pool, State Director of the BLM for California. As framed

originally, these claims were (1) that Defendants are violating the Endangered Species Act

(“ESA”) by failing to reinitiate consultation, and (2) that Defendants are violating the ESA

because their management of the Clear Creek Management Area (“CCMA”) jeopardizes the San

Benito evening-primrose (“evening-primrose”). On March 28, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a motion for

Case 5:04-cv-04736-JF Document 137 Filed 02/24/06 Page 1 of 6
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

Case No. C 04-4736 JF

ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' SECOND CLAIM

(JFLC1)

summary judgment. On April 29, 2005, Defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. 

On July 15, 2005, the Court issued an order stating that it would defer ruling on the motions for

summary judgment until after the Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) issued an anticipated

Biological Opinion evaluating the effect of BLM’s management of CCMA on the eveningprimrose. On September 2, 2005, FWS issued the anticipated 2005 Biological Opinion (“2005

BO”). Plaintiffs and Defendants subsequently filed supplemental briefs discussing the impact of

the 2005 BO on the pending motions for summary judgment. On September 16, 2005, Plaintiffs

filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint raising certain objections to the 2005

BO. On October 4, 2005, the Court issued an order dismissing Plaintiffs’ first claim as moot,

deferring determination of Plaintiffs’ second claim, and granting Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to

file a supplemental complaint. Plaintiffs’ additional claim, asserted against FWS, alleges that the

2005 BO is arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful. Neither party has yet filed any motion with

respect to Plaintiffs’ additional claim, and Defendants noted in their opposition to the instant

motion that FWS is presently in the process of compiling the administrative record for the 2005

BO. 

On January 9, 2006, this Court issued an order deferring ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion to

enforce its order of October 28, 2005 and setting a schedule for supplemental briefing. In

accordance with that order, the parties have submitted briefing with respect to the impact of the

issuance of the Record of Decision (“ROD”) based on the 2005 BO, which Defendants had

represented would occur by January 13, 2006, has on Plaintiffs’ second claim. The Court heard

oral argument on this issue on February 24, 2006.

II. DISCUSSION

The issue presently before the Court is whether Plaintiffs’ second claim is moot. The

parties interpret differently the breadth of the second claim, which is labeled “Violation of the

Endangered Species Act: Current Management of the CCMA Jeopardizes the San Benito

Evening Primrose.” Defendants contend that the second claim is based exclusively on the

contention that Defendants have failed to implement fundamental requirements set out in the

Case 5:04-cv-04736-JF Document 137 Filed 02/24/06 Page 2 of 6
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

Case No. C 04-4736 JF

ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' SECOND CLAIM

(JFLC1)

1997 BO, while Plaintiffs argue that the second claim argues more generally that “current

management of the CCMA jeopardizes the Evening Primrose” under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. 

The second claim reads as follows:

The FWS predicated its “no jeopardy” finding on BLM’s proposed

protective measures. However, BLM has failed to implement those measures,

placing the San Benito Evening-primrose in jeopardy. By failing to halt route

proliferation, expanded use of the barrens, and allowing ORV use to continue and

increase despite over 15 recorded incidents of damage to CABE and its habitat,

BLM has failed to ensure that its management of the CCMA is not likely to

jeopardize the continued existence of CABE, as required by Section 7(a)(2) of the

ESA.

The San Benito Evening-primrose is an annual plant whose population

numbers fluctuate widely in both space and time depending on climatic

conditions. It is thus dependent on the maintenance and protection of sufficient

amounts of both occupied and unoccupied suitable habitat in order to

accommodate annual shifts in reproduction, numbers and locations. The

serpentine soils and streamside terraces where CABE occurs are extremely fragile

and easily damaged by ORV use and by deposition of sediment from eroding

slopes and barrens. This damage is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to

reverse once it has occurred. As unregulated ORV use and damage to CABE

habitat continues, the number of suitable acres is decreasing in both occupied and

unoccupied sites. As suitable habitat is destroyed, areas where the species can

reproduce and maintain itself in years of appropriate climatic conditions are

reduced. If this habitat destruction continues unchecked, this species will be

placed at jeopardy of extinction.

Complaint, pp. 18-19. The second request for relief asks that the Court “[o]rder, declare and

adjudge that Defendants are in violation of the ESA, 16 U.S.C 18 § 1536(a)(2), by jeopardizing

the San Benito Evening-primrose through its failure to implement 19 required mitigation

measures which formed integral components of the1997 BO’s finding of no-jeopardy.” 

Complaint, p. 19. 

Given liberal pleading standards, the Court could, in its discretion, interpret Plaintiffs’

second claim as Plaintiffs do—as a claim alleging that BLM’s management of the CCMA is not

in compliance with the Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. However, Defendants’ position that

Plaintiffs’ second claim is predicated on the argument that Defendants are not in compliance with

the 1997 BO is not without substantial justification. The Court is concerned that it might cause

confusion, and possible jurisdictional challenges, if it were to give broad and general meaning to

Plaintiffs’ second claim. 

Because of the ongoing implementation of the 2006 ROD, the anticipated timeline for the

Case 5:04-cv-04736-JF Document 137 Filed 02/24/06 Page 3 of 6
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

Case No. C 04-4736 JF

ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' SECOND CLAIM

(JFLC1)

compilation of the administrative record for the 2005 BO, and Plaintiffs’ preference for deferring

further litigation until the end of the 2005-2006 use season, there is sufficient time to allow

Plaintiffs to clarify the second claim. Accordingly, the claim will not be dismissed. Instead, in

its discretion, the Court will abate proceedings as to the second claim as it is presently framed. 

Plaintiffs shall satisfy the sixty-day notice requirement of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(2)(A)(I),

with respect to their second claim as it was described in their most recent moving papers and at

the February 24, 2006 hearing. After the sixty-day notice period has been satisfied, Plaintiffs

shall file an amended complaint that clarifies the nature of their second claim. The Court does

not conclude that the sixty-day notice and amended complaint necessarily are required, nor will

providing such notice and filing an amended complaint be deemed a concession by Plaintiffs as

to this point.

Plaintiffs ask that the Court delay ruling on their second claim and require that BLM

“provide the Court with an updated status report at the end of this 2005-2006 OHV use season to

summarize how it has implemented the 2006 ROD and how future implementation shall occur.” 

The Court concludes that such a report would be useful with respect to both Plaintiffs’ second

and third claims. At the February 24, 2006 hearing, Defendants represented that the 2005-2006

OHV use season will end on June 1, 2006 and that it would be possible for them to submit a

report by the end of June, 2006. Accordingly, by June 30, 2006, Defendants shall submit a report

summarizing how BLM has implemented the 2006 ROD during the 2005-2006 use season and,

to the extent that such information is available at the time, how future implementation will occur. 

This report may take the form of either a status report or a supplemental legal brief.

The Court will hear oral argument on the pending motions for summary judgment with

respect to Plaintiffs’ second claim (as it may be subsequently amended), and on any motions

related to Plaintiffs’ third claim, at 9:00 am on August 25, 2006. Supplemental briefing on the

pending motions for summary judgment, in response to Plaintiffs’ amendment of their second

claim and the information provided by BLM’s report regarding the 2005-2006 use season, shall

be submitted in accordance with the local rules.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 5:04-cv-04736-JF Document 137 Filed 02/24/06 Page 4 of 6
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

Case No. C 04-4736 JF

ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' SECOND CLAIM

(JFLC1)

DATED: February 24, 2006

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-04736-JF Document 137 Filed 02/24/06 Page 5 of 6
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 No. C 04-4736 JF

ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' SECOND CLAIM

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Michael Richard Eitel michael.eitel@usdoj.gov, wanda.davis@usdoj.gov;

lisa.russell@usdoj.gov

Michael W. Graf mwgraf@aol.com,

Brian Litmans litmans@worldnet.att.net

Lisa Lynne Russell lisa.russell@usdoj.gov, deshonda.young@usdoj.gov

Paul Andrew Turcke pat@msbtlaw.com 

Case 5:04-cv-04736-JF Document 137 Filed 02/24/06 Page 6 of 6