Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-00927/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-00927-1/pdf.json

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, a

non-profit corporation; SIERRA CLUB, a nonprofit corporation; and PUBLIC EMPLOYEES

FOR ENVIRONMENTAL

RESPONSIBILITY, a non-profit corporation,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT,

Defendant.

HIGH DESERT MULTIPLE USE

COALITION, DESERT VIPERS

MOTORCYCLE CLUB, SAN DIEGO OFFROAD COALITION, CALIFORNIA

ASSOCIATION OF 4-WHEEL DRIVE

CLUBS, and THE BLUE RIBBON

COALITION, 

Defendant-Intervenors. /

No. C 00-00927 WHA

ORDER DENYING THIRDPARTY MOTION FOR CIVIL

CONTEMPT

INTRODUCTION

In this action under the Endangered Species Act, third parties Little Chief Millsite

Partnership and the Owners of Independence Millsite move to hold defendant Bureau of Land

Management in contempt. Proponents are owners of land accessible only by crossing

federally-owned lands that were the subject of the consent decree entered in this action between

defendant and plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, and Public Employees for

Case 3:00-cv-00927-WHA Document 435 Filed 09/17/07 Page 1 of 10
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

Environmental Responsibility. BLM has denied proponents’ requests for motor-vehicle access

to their property. The consent decree did not give any affirmative right for inholders to have

motor-vehicle access to their land. Accordingly, proponents’ motion is DENIED.

STATEMENT

This motion concerns an area called Surprise Canyon, located in Southern California’s

Mojave Desert within the California Desert Conservation Area. The California Desert

Conservation Area is an expanse of approximately 25 million acres of land, with 10 million

acres of that administered by BLM. Surprise Canyon was designated an Area of Critical

Environmental Concern in 1983. See 48 Fed. Reg. 54, 290 (Dec. 1, 1983). 

The bottom of the canyon has been used in the past as a route for travel to a nowabandoned mining town. The road through the canyon now leads to private inholdings within

Death Valley National Park. No other route for motorized vehicles exists to access those lands. 

The canyon road washed out in 1984. Thereafter in 1989, recreational vehicle enthusiasts

created their own road through the canyon by removing vegetation and building rock structures

in the waterfalls (Proponents’ Exh. C at 2). Perhaps 100 motorized vehicles used the

newly-created route per year, but BLM eventually found that those uses adversely affected

wildlife habitat, riparian areas, and water quality in the canyon (id. at 3, 7, 10, 12–13). The

road itself is now in terrible shape. 

The canyon itself is home to a number of rare wildlife species. In 1994, the upper

portion of Surprise Canyon was added to Death Valley National Park to form the Surprise

Canyon Wilderness (Belenky Decl. Exh. 1 at 6). In 2002, the BLM designated the Canyon

eligible for Congressional designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (ibid.). 

***

This action was originally filed on March 16, 2000. The complaint alleged that

defendant was in violation of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for failing to enter into

formal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the adoption of the California

Desert Conservation Plan (“CDCA Plan”) on threatened and endangered species. Several

groups of off-road recreationists, Desert Vipers Motorcycle Club, San Diego Off-Road

Case 3:00-cv-00927-WHA Document 435 Filed 09/17/07 Page 2 of 10
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

3

Coalition, California Association of 4-Wheel Drive Clubs, and the Blue Ribbon Coalition, were

granted defendant-intervenor status in that action.

The case eventually settled after several rounds of negotiations and a series of

stipulations that ultimately became the consent decree. On March 20, 2001, this Court entered a

consent decree and judgment in this action (Proponents’ Exh. A). Part of the consent decree

mandated closure of the road to Surprise Canyon. The relevant provision stated (Proponents’

Exh. B, ¶ 46):

By February 15, 2001, BLM shall institute an emergency closure,

via Federal Register notice publication, to motorized vehicle

access in Surprise Canyon. By May 1, 2001 BLM shall install a

locked gate in the vicinity of the south 1⁄2 of section 14 to block

vehicle access to the canyon. As soon as practicable, but no later

than July 1, 2001, BLM shall, following completion of public

scoping, completion of a NEPA document, and concurrence of the

California Desert District Office, issue a decision document. The

NEPA document shall evaluate a full range of options for

management of human access to the area in Surprise Canyon

beyond the gate. The decision document shall determine the

nature or conditions under which such access, if any will be

allowed. Individuals owning private property in the vicinity of

Panamint City shall not be subject to the restrictions of this

paragraph . . . .

That provision went on to require security measures for the gate to close the road. 

Thereafter, in May 2001, BLM published notice of its decision to close access to the

canyon for all motorized vehicles pursuant to 43 C.F.R. 8364.1 and based on an environmental

assessment. The notice stated (Proponent’s Exh. C):

This closure order is issued to provide interim protection of the

riparian habitat, water quality, and sensitive wildlife resources

and wilderness values within the Surprise Canyon ACEC until

such time when BLM completes a thorough review and analysis

of various methods of access in Surprise Canyon and complies

with the processes required by the National Environmental Policy

Act and the California Desert Conservation Area Plan. This

interim closure will allow BLM to properly evaluate and arrive at

a final decision on environmentally acceptable methods of access

in Surprise Canyon while protecting the canyon from further

impact cause by the operation of off-highway vehicles. 

66 Fed. Reg. 29163–64. The National Park Service closed the upper portion of Surprise

Canyon, which was part of Death Valley National Park, to motorized vehicle use in 2002

(Belenky Decl. Exh. 2). Since 2002, BLM has been engaged in a NEPA process regarding

Case 3:00-cv-00927-WHA Document 435 Filed 09/17/07 Page 3 of 10
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

long-term management of Surprise Canyon. BLM issued a notice of intent to prepare an

environmental impact statement soliciting scoping comments from the interested public. 

67 Fed. Reg. 37859. 

***

Not ever having been parties, proponents of this motion Little Chief Millsite Partnership

and Owners of Independence Millsite are owners of private property in Inyo County, California. 

The property is completely surrounded by federal lands, including Death Valley National Park

and other lands administered by BLM. Access to the upper portion of the road has been

restricted as it is part of Death Valley National Park. Although proponents ask for keys to the

locked gate at the bottom of Surprise Canyon road, opening the lower portion of the road would

only allow them to get within approximately two miles of their property. 

Proponents have been involved in a number of efforts to gain access for motorized

vehicles to Surprise Canyon road. In 2002, eleven groups representing off-road vehicle

enthusiasts challenged BLM’s decision to close Surprise Canyon in the United States District

Court for the Southern District of California. AMA District 37 Sports Committee et al. v. U.S.

Dept. of the Interior, et al., Case No. C 02-1998 (Brewster, J.). The road closures were upheld

in an order dated April 29, 2004, holding that the interim closures were proper measures taken

to preserve the area while BLM determined long-term plans for use (Belenky Decl. Exh. 10 at

2). 

In 2003, groups of off-road vehicle users bought old patented mining claims located

near Panamint City, ostensibly to gain motorized access to Surprise Canyon (id. at Exh. 4). 

Several of these individuals, including proponents of this motion, submitted letters to the BLM

and the National Park Service requesting keys to the locked gate at the bottom of the road. 

BLM performed a supplemental environmental analysis of the environmental effects of

allowing motorized access to the canyon (Def.’s Exh. 3). BLM noted that more of the trail had

washed out after the closure destroying some vegetation, but that vegetation in other places had

returned where it had been removed to provide motor-vehicle access (id. at 5). BLM concluded

that opening the road to motor-vehicle access could adversely affect approximately 20% of

Case 3:00-cv-00927-WHA Document 435 Filed 09/17/07 Page 4 of 10
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

riparian vegetation, eventually lower the stream’s water table, and increase erosion in the

streambed (id. at 12). Effects on water quality could possibly cause the stream to violate state

water-quality standards (ibid.). 

BLM issued a decision record after the analysis was completed which denied

unqualified motor-vehicle access to the canyon to the public, including property owners (id. at

Exh. 1 at 2). The BLM’s decision record explained (id. at 3):

Landowners of the Independence Millsite have submitted a

request or demand for a key to the locked gate across Surprise

Canyon for the purpose of driving off-road vehicles across federal

[land] in Surprise Canyon to access their recently acquired

property. Their request, if granted, would result in appreciable

disturbance or damage to federal lands and resources, and

therefore cannot be considered a casual use activity. Thus, in

order to further consider landowner requests to access their

property by driving off-road vehicles through Surprise Canyon,

they must apply for a permit or right of way under the provisions

of 43 CFR 2800/2929 and 36 CFR 14. If an application is

received, BLM will process it according to procedures in the

regulations.

Landowners may exercise their access rights to their property as

casual users of the federal lands through hiking, through the use

of pack animals, or by helicopter landing on their parcel of

property. 

The decision record also acknowledged the consent decree from the prior action (id. at 2):

[The consent decree] does not exempt BLM from compliance

with applicable laws and regulations in carrying out the

provisions of the Court order. In the case of Surprise Canyon, the

Consent Decree and Court Orders indicate that owners of private

land in the vicinity of Panamint City may receive a key to a

locked gate, and an agreement from the BLM in order to access

their property. The Court Order does not exempt BLM from

following legal and regulatory procedures in addressing the

landowner access requests. At this time there is no basis for BLM

issuing keys and establishing such an agreement because

decisions regarding landowner access have not been made. 

BLM, together with the National Park Service, informed proponents of the decision stating that

the agency would consider the request a pre-application proposal and gave proponents

information on how to apply for authorization to use the lands (id. at 2). The response also

informed proponents that they would have to choose between seeking a permit to use federal

lands or seeking a right-of-way, and included blank applications (id. at 3). 

Case 3:00-cv-00927-WHA Document 435 Filed 09/17/07 Page 5 of 10
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

Little Chief Millsite Partners then submitted a request for rights-of-way over both BLM

and NPS lands. The agencies contacted Millsite Partners on November 22, 2004, and informed

them that the applications would be processed pursuant to a schedule for a joint effort by the

agencies to analyze alternatives for vehicle route designations in Surprise Canyon (Def.’s

Exh. 2). Proponents claim that BLM and NPS have refused to issue a final decision on their

application for rights-of-way in order to prevent them from appealing the decision. They filed

this motion to hold BLM in contempt for failing to comply with the consent decree in this

action on August 6, 2007. 

ANALYSIS

Courts have the inherent authority to enforce their orders by exercising their contempt

powers. “Because of their very potency, inherent powers must be exercised with restraint and

discretion.” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991). In a contempt proceeding, the

moving party has the burden of showing that by clear and convincing evidence that the

contemnors violated a specific and definite order of the court. Stone v. City and County of San

Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 856 n.9 (9th Cir. 1992). The burden then shifts to contemnors to

demonstrate why they were unable to comply. Ibid. Failure to comply with a court order

consists of not taking all reasonable steps within contemnor’s power to comply with the order. 

Balla v. Idaho State Bd. of Corr., 869 F.2d 461, 466 (9th Cir. 1989). Present inability to

comply with a court order is a complete defense to charges of civil contempt. Donovan v.

Mazzola, 761 F.2d 1411, 1417 (9th Cir. 1985). 

With respect to this motion, no party disputes that proponents have not been given keys

to the gate and that proponents are currently unable to access their property using motorized

vehicles. Plaintiffs and defendant argue that the consent decree gives proponents no right to

motor-vehicle access to Surprise Canyon road. 

1. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONSENT DECREE.

Proponents of this motion argue that the consent decree gives them an affirmative right

to access their inholdings. Because of that, so the argument goes, BLM must give them keys to

the gate. The consent decree affirmatively required BLM to close the Surprise Canyon road to

Case 3:00-cv-00927-WHA Document 435 Filed 09/17/07 Page 6 of 10
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

motorized vehicles as of a certain date. It also required them to take certain security measures

such as installing a locked gate. The consent decree provided an exception, stating that

“[i]ndividuals owning private property in the vicinity of Panamint City shall not be subject to

the restrictions of this paragraph . . . .” (Def.’s Exh. B, ¶ 46). The exception reserved the issue

of whether landowners could have access to inholdings. It did not create an affirmative right for

landowners to have motor-vehicle access to the Surprise Canyon road. The provision was

merely intended to indicate that the issue was not part of the consent decree and was left to

future regulation. 

Proponents make similar arguments with regard to the settlement agreement between

plaintiffs and defendant on which the consent decree was based. As with the consent decree,

however, those agreements only created an exception for landowners to closing the road. They

did not affirmatively require that BLM give proponents of this motion motor-vehicle access or

keys to the gate. They merely severed the separate issue of whether and under what

circumstances the inholders would be allowed access. 

In the alternative, proponents argue that under the consent decree, BLM is required to

follow the law, and that BLM has violated certain federal statutes by not allowing inholders

motor-vehicle access. The consent decree contains the following provision: “In complying

with the terms of this agreement, BLM shall be subject to all applicable federal statutes or

regulations, and nothing in this agreement shall be construed to require BLM to take any actions

in contravention of any such applicable statute or regulations” (Proponents’ Exh. B, ¶ 56). The

order approving the consent decree stated that “[t]he consent decrees will not and may not be

asserted as legal authority for any agency action over and above the BLM’s existing statutory

authority or to avoid any duties under NEPA” (id. at Exh. A, 13). 

Proponents argue that BLM is violating the Federal Land Policy and Management Act,

the Alaska Native Interest Land Act, and the California Desert Protection Act by not allowing

them motor-vehicle access. The FLPMA governs BLM’s policy for granting rights-of-way. 43

U.S.C. 1764(c). ANILCA and the CDPA address access to inholdings surrounded by federal

lands. ANILCA provides: 

Case 3:00-cv-00927-WHA Document 435 Filed 09/17/07 Page 7 of 10
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

8

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and subject to such

terms and conditions as the Secretary of the Interior may

prescribe, the Secretary shall provide such access to nonfederally

owned land surrounded by public lands managed by the Secretary

under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43

U.S.C. 1701–82) as the Secretary deems adequate to secure the

owner the reasonable use and enjoyment thereof: Provided that

such owner comply with rules and regulations applicable to

access across public lands. 

16 U.S.C. 3210(b). Similarly, the CDPA provides:

The Secretary shall provide adequate access to nonfederally

owned land or interests in land within the boundaries of the

conservation units and wilderness areas designated by this

subchapter which will provide the owner of such land or interest

the reasonable use and enjoyment thereof.

16 U.S.C. 410aaa-78. Proponents contend that BLM has violated these statutes in

contravention of the consent decree by not giving them motor-vehicle access to their land. 

Proponents are essentially arguing that the consent decree requires that BLM’s

obligations under these laws trump its obligations under all others. The consent decree does

require that BLM must follow federal and state laws, but that requirement is limited to BLM’s

affirmative obligations under the consent decree. This provision does not mean that by signing

the consent decree, the agency agreed to submit to a roving obligation to comply with all laws

concerning the subject lands. Interpreting the consent decree in such a way would short-circuit

the APA and would allow any person into court based on the consent decree. All that was

intended was that the affirmative obligations imposed by the decree were subject to the

agency’s duties imposed by statute. Moreover, giving the inholders motor-vehicle access could

run afoul of the agency’s NEPA obligations under the consent decree. The two foregoing

reasons are sufficient by themselves to deny proponents’ request for motor-vehicle access to the

inholdings. Accordingly, Little Chief Millsite Partnership and the Owners of Independence

Millsite’s motion to hold defendant in contempt is DENIED. 

2. PROPONENTS’ RIGHT-OF-WAY APPLICATION.

Proponents also argue that BLM violated the consent decree by requiring them to submit

applications for permits or rights-of-way. Again, this argument goes back to proponents’

assertion that the consent decree confers some automatic affirmative right to have motor-vehicle

Case 3:00-cv-00927-WHA Document 435 Filed 09/17/07 Page 8 of 10
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

9

access to the canyon road. This is not so. Along the same lines, proponents also argue that

prior to entry of the consent decree, BLM allowed them access. Again, this helps their cause

little because BLM made the decision to close the canyon road to all motor traffic based on

findings that an emergency closure was necessary to evaluate the condition of the area and

develop a land-use plan pursuant to NEPA. 

In the alternative, proponents point out that they filed applications for rights-of-way to

use the canyon road more than four years ago. The agency has never issued a final action. 

Proponents argue that the agency’s failure to approve the rights-of-way constitutes a violation

of their right to access under FLPMA, ANILCA, and the CDPA. Claims under those statutes

are not before the Court at this time. Plaintiffs may still be able to bring a separate APA action

under those statutes and obtain relief. The present motion, we must remember, is styled as an

attempt to enforce the decree, not as a new APA action. 

Finally, proponents contend that they should get access under the consent decree

because BLM has violated the APA by delaying unreasonably in issuing final action on their

applications for rights-of-way. Specifically, they assert that they should not have to wait until

BLM completes an environmental impact statement before getting a final decision. In support

of this argument, they cite Hale v. Norton, 476 F.3d 694, 698 (9th Cir. 2007). In Hale, the

Ninth Circuit held that requiring a NEPA process before acting on an application for right-ofway was permitted under ANILCA. The plaintiff’s application was ultimately denied based on

data and conclusions from the NEPA process. Id. at 700–01. Proponents point out that the

delay in processing their right-of-way applications has been far longer than that in Hale —

nearly four years here compared with approximately nine weeks in Hale. The delay in

processing proponents’ applications here is certainly troublesome, but those claims are not

before the Court. 

To tee up the issue, proponents must file a new lawsuit under the APA to compel agency

action, rather than seeking to enforce an old decree in someone else’s case concluded years

before any agency action was requested by proponents. With regard to any subsequent action,

there is nothing in the consent decree that requires the agency to allow access to the inholdings

Case 3:00-cv-00927-WHA Document 435 Filed 09/17/07 Page 9 of 10
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

10

in question. Nor is there anything in the consent decree that prohibits the agency from allowing

access. The issue of access to the inholdings is left to agency action independent of the consent

decree. Under no circumstances should the agency assert in a later or separate proceeding that

the consent decree restricts its ability to allow proponents access to the inholdings, especially

after the arguments it has advanced on this motion. Accordingly, proponents’ motion to hold

defendant in contempt is DENIED.

CONCLUSION

For all of the above-stated reasons, Little Chief Millsite Partnership and Owners of

Independence Millsite’s motion to hold the Bureau of Land Management in contempt is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 17, 2007. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:00-cv-00927-WHA Document 435 Filed 09/17/07 Page 10 of 10