Oregon Natural Desert Ass'n v. McDaniel et al
Filing
160
OPINION & ORDER: I adopt BLM's proposal in full. Accordingly, pending a new decision by the IBLA, BLM shall limit mechanical maintenance activities within the CMPA as described in its proposal for temporary injunction 147 and assoc iated maps and spreadsheets. This court will retain jurisdiction over this action and will review the temporary injunction upon issuance of the IBLA's decision. Today's opinion resolves plaintiff's motion for permanent injunction 105 . Signed on 8/25/11 by Magistrate Judge Paul Papak. (gm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
OREGON NATURAL DESERT ASS 'N,
Plaintiff,
3 :09-cv-00369-PK
OPINION AND ORDER
KENNY MCDANIEL, Burn District
Manager, BLM, et al.,
Defendants.
PAPAK, Judge:
Plaintiff Oregon Natural Desert Association ("ONDA") brought this action arising from
the travel management planning process for the Steens Mountain. ONDA alleged that either
BLM's decision adopting its Travel Management Plan ("TMP") or the Interior Board of Land
Appeals' ("IBLA") decision approving BLM's adoption ofthe TMP violates the Steens
Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of2000 ("Steens Act"), 16 U.S.C. §
460nnn et seq., the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 ("FLPMA"), 43 U.S.C. §§
1701-87, the Wildemess Act of 1964, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1131-36, and the National Environmental
Page 1 - OPINION AND ORDER
Policy Act ("NEPA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-61.
This comi initially determined that the IBLA's decision - rather than BLM's original
adoption of the TMP- was the single final agency action susceptible to judicial review. Then, on
April 28, 2011, this comi ruled that the IBLA's decision was inadequate to pennit meaningful
judicial review and thus "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in
accordance with law" under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). (#103.) Specifically, this court observed that
the IBLA failed to address ONDA's repeated contention that the route inventory upon which
BLM based its TMP contained serious methodological flaws and additionally failed to address
seven distinct legal issues ONDA raised related to the route inventory. Jd. This court, however,
explicitly declined to find any violations of the substantive environmental statutes alleged by
ONDA. Jd. Consequently, this court vacated the IBLA's decision, but not the underlying TMP
and associated environmental analyses, and remanded for fmiher proceedings before the agency.
Jd.
Next, upon reconsideration, this court altered its previous decision and remanded the
action back to the agency for fmiher explanation without vacating the IBLA's decision. (# 118.)
Additionally, the comi detelmined that, pending a new decision by the IBLA, a temporary
injunction on mechanical route maintenance was necessary to prevent BLM from etTectively
creating new routes under the guise of route maintenance. The cmni, however, found the scope
of ONDA's proposed injunction on maintenance of all Level 2 routes to be much too broad.
Thus, the court gave the pmiies two weeks to confer and submit a joint proposal or separate
proposals for a temporary injunction narrowly tailored to the "pmiicular routes that ONDA
alleges are obscure or non-existent." Jd. at 8. In the meantime, the court prohibited BLM from
Page 2 - OPINION AND ORDER
conducting any of the maintenance of Level 2 routes it had planned for the summer season. Id
When ONDA requested a three-week extension oftime in which to confer and draft a
proposal, BLM agreed so long as ONDA would pennit BLM to conduct certain maintenance
projects during the additional three weeks. Although ONDA agreed that BLM could calTY out
most ofthose planned maintenance projects, ONDA resisted three specific maintenance projects.
Nevertheless, this court allowed BLM to conduct those three projects, as well as the other
projects agreed to by stipulation of the parties, while the parties worked on their injunction
proposals. (#135.)
Ultimately, the parties failed to reach complete agreement on the scope of a temporary
injunction and instead submitted separate but overlapping proposals for a temporary injunction
pending remand to the IBLA. (#147, #157.) BLM limited its proposal to addressing only the
approximately 100 miles of routes challenged as "obscure" by ONDA's expert Dr. Craig Miller in
his July 2010 declaration accompanying ONDA's motion for summary judgment. (#147.) BLM
conducted on-the-ground analyses on these routes and identified various features or uses to
which these routes provided access, such as fences, reservoirs, monitoring points, private lands,
and hunting locations. Of those routes, BLM proposed allowing no maintenance on
approximately 26 miles and limited maintenance consisting of repairs necessary for effective
transport and safe access (but no continuous blading) on approximately 64 miles. I BLM also
proposed excluding 24 ways within Wilderness Study Areas, three closed routes, and one state
land route from the scope of the injunction altogether. Finally, BLM's proposal retained the
BLM, however, proposed an exception for potential continuous blading on routes inside
the North Steens Project Units if necessmy for conducting prescribed burns in those areas.
I
Page 3 - OPINION AND ORDER
flexibility to conduct wildfire-related maintenance, including continuous blading, on any routes if
necessary to ensure safe access and effective fire breaks.
By contrast, ONDA's proposal addressed many more routes than just those identified by
Dr. Miller's declaration. (#157.) Indeed, ONDA sought to prevent maintenance not only on
allegedly "obscure" routes, but also on routes that did not meet the frequently used definition of a
"road" because they had not been "improved and maintained by mechanical means to insure
relatively regular and continuous use." Id. Consequently, ONDA proposed allowing no
maintenance on approximately 224 miles of routes that never existed as roads and limited
maintenance (or "spot maintenance") on another 114 miles of routes that once were maintained
as roads but now had fallen into disuse. Id. ONDA's proposal pelmitted BLM to continue
maintaining the remainder of the routes within the CMPA up to the level of their originally
constructed character.
I have reviewed both pat1ies' proposals. In light of the record before me, I adopt BLM's
proposal in full. Accordingly, pending a new decision by the IBLA, BLM shall limit mechanical
maintenance activities within the CMPA as described in its proposal for temporary injunction
(#147) and associated maps and spreadsheets. This com1 will retain jurisdiction over this action
and will review the temporary injunction upon issuance of the IBLA's decision. Today's opinion
resolves plaintiffs motion for permanent injunction (#105).
Dated this
-t~
2:::, day of August, 2011.
..... .
~2jl
Honorable Paul Papak
United States Magistrate Judge
Page 4 - OPINION AND ORDER
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?