Oregon Natural Desert Ass'n v. McDaniel et al, No. 3:2009cv00369 - Document 160 (D. Or. 2011)
Court Description: 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)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
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
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
