CBD Lawsuit

The Center for Biological Diversity on March 16th filed a lawsuit against the Bureau of Land Management. The Plaintiffs are joined in the suit by The Sierra Club and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The lawsuit may have serious ramifications concerning the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area. Rumors and misinformation are rampant about this lawsuit. Glamis On Line has obtained a copy of a the complaint. Pertinent excerpts from the complaint are presented below to dispel the rumors and disseminate correct information about the suit. You can also read the Plaintiff's press release about the suit by clicking here.

FACT: The lawsuit does not target any specific area or site within the 1.25 million acres of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) managed the BLM.

FACT: The lawsuit targets off-road use within the area of CDCA managed by the BLM

FACT: It is not known, at this time, how off-road use will be impacted by an injunction if the Plaintiffs' are successful

GOL Conjecture: There will probably be a settlement. It is inconceivable that an injunction would be granted to halt ongoing grazing, mining and energy production. But what about ongoing and continuing off-road vehicle use? The ISDRA is scheduled for resource monitoring of one of the endangered species listed in the suit. There could be some adverse impact from this.

Excerpts from the lawsuit filed on March 16th against the Bureau of Land Management. The suit contends that the BLM did not consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as the law requires.

“I. INTRODUCTION This is an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs challenge the failure of Defendant Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) to initiate and complete consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act… Plaintiffs further allege that BLM is in continuous violation of Section 7(d), 16 U.S.C.§1536(d) of the ESA by continuing to … authorize or otherwise allow activities pursuant to the CDCA Plan that may affect listed species, including the approval of… off-road vehicle use, recreational use…”

“For BLM’s violations of the ESA and the APA, Plaintiffs seek an order compelling BLM to initiate and complete consultation with FWS regarding the programmatic effects of the CDCA Plan on all federally listed threatened and endangered species found within the CDCA. Plaintiffs further seek an order enjoining BLM from approving, allowing, carrying out, or continuing any individual livestock grazing activities, road building, off-road vehicle use, recreational use, water diversions, energy production, utility corridors, special use permits, land exchange, mining and other projects pursuant to the CDCA Plan until the BLM has complied with it’s mandatory statutory obligations under the ESA. Such relief is necessary to preserve the status quo, prevent illegal agency action, and forestall irreparable injury to the threatened and endangered species inhabiting the CDCA, and Plaintiffs’ interest.”

“Claim II… VI PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter judgment providing relief:… (4) An order enjoining BLM from authorizing, carrying out, or continuing any livestock grazing, road building, off-road vehicle use, recreational use, water diversions, energy production, utility corridors, special use permits, land exchanges, mining, and other projects on the CDCA until the agency completes the required Section 7 consultation with FWS.”

CDCA = California Desert Conservation Area

ESA = Endangered Species Act

APA = Administrative Procedure Act