National Trust for Historic Preservation et al v. Suazo et al

Filing 57

ORDER and INJUNCTION: By September 30, 2017, BLM shall complete its reconsideration of the portions of the ROD, RMP, and Final EIS that the Court found deficient in its previous order (Doc. 43 ). Within 60 days of this order, BLM shall implement the interim measures that Ronald Tipton proposed in his affidavit (Doc. 55-1). These measures shall include prohibiting recreational target shooting within the area identified in the affidavit and the accompanying map (Doc. 55-2). The Clerk shall enter a final judgment in this case. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 7/17/15. (SJF)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

National Trust for Historic Preservation, et
al.,

10

Plaintiffs,

11
12
13
14

No. CV-13-01973-PHX-DGC
ORDER AND INJUNCTION

v.
Raymond Suazo, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

This case involves the Bureau of Land Management’s (“BLM”) decision to allow

17

recreational target shooting throughout the Sonoran Desert National Monument. The

18

Court previously found that this decision violated BLM’s duty under a Presidential

19

Proclamation to manage the Monument so as to protect the “objects” of the Monument.

20

The Court also found that portions of BLM’s environmental impact statement violated

21

the National Environmental Protection Act. The Court therefore vacated BLM’s decision

22

regarding shooting and remanded the issue “to BLM for reconsideration of that decision

23

in light of the shortcomings identified in this order.” Doc. 43 at 22-23.

24

Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for injunctive relief. The Court found that

25

injunctive relief was appropriate, but that further evidence was needed to craft the

26

injunction. Doc. 54. The Court ordered an appropriate representative of the Bureau of

27

Land Management (“BLM”) to submit an affidavit addressing: “(1) the earliest

28

practicable date by which BLM can comply with the Court’s previous order (Doc. 43);

1

and (2) recommended interim measures that will limit the damage that recreational

2

shooting is inflicting on Monument objects, including but not limited to damage to

3

animals and their habitats, protected plants and vegetation, sites of historic or

4

archeological significance, and areas used by the public.” Doc. 54 at 12. Defendants

5

have submitted the requested affidavit and Plaintiffs have responded. Docs. 55, 56.

6

I.

Parties’ Recommendations Regarding Scope of Injunction.

7

Ronald C. Tipton, the acting field manager for BLM’s Lower Sonoran Field

8

Office, has submitted an affidavit addressing the issues identified by the Court. Doc. 55-

9

1. Tipton states that September 30, 2017 is the earliest practicable date by which BLM

10

can comply the Court’s previous order. Id., ¶ 6. As for interim measures that will limit

11

the damage that recreational shooting is inflicting on Monument objects, Tipton states:

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

[A]fter reviewing the Court’s order the BLM notes that the area along the
El Paso Natural Gas Pipeline right-of-way has been identified as having
concentrated target shooting that may be unsuitable for this activity. The
SDNM Recreational Target Shooting Analysis . . . included photographs of
the effects of concentrated target shooting from this area . . . including
incidents of vandalism to public lands, government property, and
Monument objects . . . . Intensively-used shooting sites tend to be
“adjacent to vehicle routes” . . . with the shooting sites along the El Paso
Natural Gas Pipeline the most easily accessible of the Monument. Such
harm to Monument objects is less likely to occur from dispersed
recreational target shooting where access by vehicle is more difficult and
fewer numbers of target shooters congregate. Based on these observations,
the BLM recommends that closure of this area may be effective in limiting
damage to Monument objects. Closing this area is likely to redirect
recreational target shooters to public lands outside the Monument, thereby
eliminating concentrated impacts to Monument objects. This area includes
a one quarter-mile wide area adjacent to the El Paso Natural Gas Pipeline
right-of-way, where that right-of-way forms the northern boundary of the
Monument, including an area extending one quarter-mile to either side of
BLM Route 8001.

23

Id., ¶ 7. Tipton also states that BLM law enforcement will regularly patrol the area he

24

has identified, as well as other areas. Id., ¶ 8. Finally, Tipton affirms that “BLM will

25

continue to engage in education and outreach efforts to all parties interested in

26

recreational target shooting on the Monument.” Id., ¶ 9.

27

Plaintiffs have responded to Tipton’s affidavit. Doc. 56. They state that they do

28

not object to the September 30, 2017 deadline, “so long as meaningful interim closures

-2-

1

are in place to protect the Monument’s objects from target shooting.” Doc. 56 at 4.

2

Plaintiffs point out many problems with BLM’s proposals. The area that BLM proposes

3

to close off to recreational shooting covers only three percent of the Monument’s acreage.

4

This interim measure, they assert, would not ameliorate the environmental harm that

5

shooting inflicts on approximately 97% of the Monument. The Juan Bautista de Anza

6

National Historic Trail in particular would remain open to the harms caused by target

7

shooting.

8

outreach efforts, as well as to patrol the Monument to ensure compliance with

9

regulations, are similar to the administrative actions that the Court previously found to be

10

Finally, Plaintiffs argue that BLM’s proposals to continue education and

inconsistent with BLM’s duty to protect Monument objects. See Doc. 43 at 11-14.

11

Instead of BLM’s proposal, Plaintiffs recommend that the Court order the closure

12

of an area that BLM had previously identified as being unsuitable for target shooting due

13

to the “significant presence” of Monument objects.

14

encompasses approximately 80.2% of the Monument and includes Monument objects

15

such as the palo verde mixed cacti community, the habitat of the Sonoran desert tortoise,

16

and historic and cultural sites. Id. Plaintiffs stress that their approach prevents harm to

17

Monument objects while still allowing shooting within portions of the Monument.

18

II.

See A.R. 22034.

This area

Analysis.

19

“An injunction is a drastic and extraordinary remedy, which should not be granted

20

as a matter of course.” Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139, 165 (2010).

21

“A district court has ‘broad latitude in fashioning equitable relief when necessary to

22

remedy an established wrong.’” High Sierra Hikers Ass’n v. Blackwell, 390 F.3d 630,

23

641 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). A district court can abuse its discretion “by

24

deferring to agency views concerning the equitable prerequisites for an injunction,”

25

Sierra Forest Legacy v. Sherman, 646 F.3d 1161, 1186 (9th Cir. 2011), or by crafting an

26

overbroad injunction, Lamb-Weston, Inc. v. McCain Foods, Ltd., 941 F.2d 970, 974 (9th

27

Cir. 1991).

28

-3-

1

The Court is confronted with widely differing proposals. BLM’s proposal would

2

protect only three percent of the Monument, although Plaintiffs do not dispute that it is a

3

three percent that sees heavy shooting activity. Plaintiffs’ proposal would close most of

4

the Monument. See Doc. 56-1 at 29. The Court could order an evidentiary hearing to

5

address these divergent proposals, but BLM is already preparing a new resource

6

management plan and the Court is reluctant to engage in an analysis of which measures

7

best protect Monument objects while BLM is engaged in the same analysis.

8

explained by the Ninth Circuit:

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

As

In a variety of settings, including protection of the environment, the Ninth
Circuit has shown considerable deference for factual and technical
determinations implicating substantial agency expertise. . . . [D]etermining
what measures are needed through extensive fact intensive inquiry is
precisely the purpose of the long term environmental review ordered by the
district court . . . . It would be odd to require the district court to conduct an
extensive inquiry, which would by nature involve scientific determinations,
in order to support interim measures that are designed to temporarily
protect the environment while the BLM conducts studies in order to make
the very same scientific determinations.
Idaho Watersheds Project v. Hahn, 307 F.3d 815, 831 (9th Cir. 2002).

16

The Court is not well-enough informed enough to craft an injunction different

17

from the parties’ proposals, and therefore must accept one or the other. Given the drastic

18

nature of injunctive relief and the deference courts generally should afford agency

19

judgments, the Court will adopt BLM’s proposed interim measure. By this decision, the

20

Court does not intend to imply what result should come from BLM’s renewed

21

examination of the Monument’s protection.

22

IT IS ORDERED:

23

1.

By September 30, 2017, BLM shall complete its reconsideration of the

24

portions of the ROD, RMP, and Final EIS that the Court found deficient in

25

its previous order (Doc. 43).

26

2.

Within 60 days of this order, BLM shall implement the interim measures

27

that Ronald Tipton proposed in his affidavit (Doc. 55-1). These measures

28

shall include prohibiting recreational target shooting within the area

-4-

1

identified in the affidavit and the accompanying map (Doc. 55-2).

2

3.

3

Dated this 17th day of July, 2015.

The Clerk shall enter a final judgment in this case.

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-