Sierra Club v. Watt
Decision Date | 24 April 1985 |
Docket Number | No. Civ. S-83-035 LKK.,Civ. S-83-035 LKK. |
Citation | 608 F. Supp. 305 |
Parties | SIERRA CLUB, a nonprofit corporation; Wilderness Society, a nonprofit corporation; National Audubon Society, a nonprofit corporation; Natural Resources Defense Council, a nonprofit corporation; Environmental Defense Fund, a nonprofit corporation; National Wildlife Federation, a nonprofit corporation, Plaintiffs, and State of California, Plaintiff in Intervention, v. James G. WATT, as Secretary of the Department of Interior; Robert F. Burford, as Director of the Bureau of Land Management, Defendants, and Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Company, Mountain States Legal Foundation, County of Montezuma, Colorado, and Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts, Defendants in Intervention. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Laurens H. Silver, Karin P. Sheldon, Johanna Wald, San Francisco, Robert Dreher, Hill & Barlow, Boston, Mass., for plaintiffs.
John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen. of the State of Cal., Theodora Berger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Craig C. Thompson, Deputy Atty. Gen., Sacramento, Cal., for intervenor-plaintiffs People of the State of Cal., ex rel. Van de Kamp.
Donald B. Ayer, U.S. Atty., Gary B. Randall, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Federal defendants.
William H. Mellor III, Constance E. Brooks, Steven D. Ellis, Denver, Colo., for defendant-intervenors.
John R. Duree, Jr., Michael J. Weinberger, Sacramento, Cal., White, Fine & Verville, Lee C. White, Peter S. Leyton, Washington, D.C., Damrell, Damrell & Nelson, Frank C. Damrell, Jr., Ann M. Veneman, Modesto, Cal., for defendants-in-intervention Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts.
Ann Straw Rieck, Ronald A. Lane, Chicago, Ill., Benjamin B. Salvaty, Clay M. Smith, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant in intervention Santa Fe Pacific R. Co., Jerome C. Muys, Washington, D.C., of counsel.
Charles C. Dietrich, Sausalito, Cal., Mary Jane C. Due, Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae American Mining Congress.
In 1976, Congress enacted the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. §§ 1701-1784 (Supp. 1983), to provide "the first comprehensive, statutory statement of purposes, goals and authority for the use and management of about 448 million acres1 of federally-owned lands administered by the Secretary of Interior through the Bureau of Land Management." S.Rep. No. 583, 94th Cong., 1st sess. 24 (1975).2 FLPMA reflected a major change in federal policy. Previously, the lands held by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (and its predecessor the General Land Office) were viewed as only temporarily within the custody of the United States and it was expected that their ultimate destiny was private ownership.3 Under FLPMA, however, BLM lands were to be held in permanent federal ownership unless, as a result of land use planning, the disposal of a particular parcel would serve the national interest. FLPMA § 102(a)(1), 43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(1).4
In FLPMA Congress declared as a national policy that public lands held by the BLM were to be managed on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield unless otherwise specified by law, § 102(a)(7), 43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(7). Nonetheless, Congress also declared as national policy that:
The public lands be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archaeological values; that, where appropriate, will preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition; that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals; and that will provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use; ...
FLPMA § 102(a)(8), 43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(8). Congress also required that regulations and plans for the protection of public land areas of critical concern be promptly developed, § 102(a)(11), 43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(11).
FLPMA § 603(c), 43 U.S.C. § 1782(c) (emphasis in original). Section 603(c) provides that once Congress has formerly designated an area for inclusion in the Wilderness Preservation System, the management provisions of the Wilderness Act apply. FLPMA § 603(c), 43 U.S.C. § 1782(c).5
In order to carry out the wilderness review provisions of section 603(a) and other sections of the Act, including the inventory preparation requirement of section 201, the former Secretary of Interior, Cecil Andrus, established a wilderness review program consisting of three phases: inventory, study, and reporting. During the inventory phase, those roadless areas of the public lands which have wilderness characteristics were identified as "wilderness study areas" (WSA's). The procedure for determining whether an area of the public lands met WSA status was provided in the "Wilderness Inventory Handbook" (WIH), a statement of policy, direction, procedures and guidance for the wilderness review program published by the BLM on September 27, 1978. The WIH provided that, with certain exceptions, the wilderness inventory be conducted on all public lands administered by the BLM.6 The WIH prescribes that in choosing areas for section 603 WSA status the factors to be used are:
WIH at 6 (emphasis in original).
In addition, the WIH directed that other areas which had wilderness characteristics as defined in (2) and (3) above, but which contained fewer than 5,000 acres, were still eligible for WSA identification if they were either:
In further implementation of the statute, the BLM published on December 12, 1979, an "Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands Under Wilderness Review" (IMP) which set forth the guidelines under which the BLM would manage the lands subject to wilderness review, but for which the BLM wilderness inventory process had not yet been completed and lands which the BLM has determined to have wilderness characteristics. IMP at 5. The interim management policy also applies to WSA's during the time the area is under wilderness review and until Congress acts. Id. The IMP required that lands identified as having wilderness characteristics be managed so as not to impair their suitability for preservation as wilderness. With respect to WSA's over 5,000 acres, this requirement is derived from section 603(c) of FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. § 1782(c). IMP at 6. Under the IMP, lands with wilderness characteristics but less than 5,000 acres in size were to be managed under a modified nonimpairment standard pursuant to section 302(b), 43 U.S.C. § 1732(b). IMP at 10.7 The goals of management under the nonimpairment standard are: (1) to ensure that any area that now satisfies the wilderness definition in section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1131(c),8 will satisfy that definition both when the Secretary sends his recommendation to the President and thereafter until the Congress acts, and (2) to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fuller v. United States
...court has recently bemoaned the Supreme Court's erratic phrasing and application of the "plain meaning" rule. See Sierra Club v. Watt, 608 F.Supp. 305, 332 n. 49 (1985). No benefit would be gained by restating that history here. Although sometimes this trial judge feels the rule's applicati......
-
Sierra Club v. Hodel
...standing to challenge the existence, location and scope of the right-of-way as it passes through the public lands. Sierra Club v. Watt, 608 F.Supp. 305, 317 (E.D.Cal.1985).23 C. History of the The parties have disputed the extent of use and attention the trail has received over the past cen......
-
Diaz v. INS, Civ. S-83-436 LKK.
...has broad significance, see Joseph v. United States Civil Serv. Comm'n, 554 F.2d 1140, 1152-53 (D.C.Cir.1977); Sierra Club v. Watt, 608 F.Supp. 305, 329 (E.D.Cal.1985), resolution of the character of the Attorney General's regulations does not appear to be necessary in the instant case. Nei......
-
Wilderness Soc. v. Tyrrel
...66 S.Ct. 637, 90 L.Ed. 718 (1946); Deukmejian v. United States Postal Service, 734 F.2d 460, 462 (9th Cir.1984); Sierra Club v. Watt, 608 F.Supp. 305, 330 (E.D.Cal.1985); Diaz, 648 F.Supp. at 644-45. As I explain below, a different but related issue concerns an agency's obligation to follow......
-
CHAPTER 1 EVOLUTION OF FEDERAL PUBLIC LAND AND RESOURCES LAW
...1485 (S.D. Fla. 1987). [429] E.g., Smith v. United States Forest Serv., 33 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1994). [430] E.g., Sierra Club v. Watt, 608 F. Supp. 305 (E.D. Cal. 1985). [431] California v. Block, 690 F.2d 753 (9th Cir. 1982). [432] Sierra Club v. Peterson, 717 F.2d 1409 (D.C. Cir. 1983). S......
-
CHAPTER 5 CURRENT ISSUES IN ACQUISITION AND MAINTENANCE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ON PUBLIC LANDS
...entity. BLM's authority to study the public land surface estate for wilderness designation was affirmed, Sierra Club v. Watt, 608 F. Supp. 305, 322 (E.D. Calif. 1985), notwithstanding the potential impacts on mineral development. [4] 16 U.S.C. § 1132(b). Congress gave the Forest Service 10 ......
-
Federal Land Management Errors: Recourse for Lessees and Claimants
...4, 1985) (order granting preliminary injunction). 4. 42 U.S.C. § 4331 et seq. 5. 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. 6. 43 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq. 7. 608 F.Supp. 305 (E.D.Cal. 1985). 8. See, Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972) (an organization whose members are injured has standing to bring an ac......