American Motorcyclist Association v. Watt

Nos. 82-5099, -5100 (714 F.2d 962, 20 ERC 1838) (9th Cir. September 1, 1983)

ELR Digest

The court holds that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to enjoin the implementation of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan because of potential harm to the fragile desert resources, despite the district court's finding of a strong likelihood of success on the merits of plaintiffs' claims of violations of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and its problematic refusal to hear plaintiffs' National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) claims. The CDCA Plan, a land management plan required by FLPMA § 601, governs over 12 million acres of federal land in the California desert. Plaintiff American Motorcyclist Association sought to enjoin implementation of the plan alleging that it would prevent traditional recreational vehicle use of the desert. Plaintiff Inyo County alleged that the plan is inconsistent with its land use plan, failed to protect certain environmental features, and would erode its tax base. The district court, although finding a strong likelihood that plaintiffs would be able to prove FLPMA violations, nevertheless held that they were not entitled to an injunction under either the "traditional" or "alternative" tests because plaintiffs had not shown they would suffer irreparable harm or that the balance of hardships was in their favor. Also, it held an injunction would not be in the public interest.

On appeal, plaintiffs challenge the district court's holding that they lacked standing to raise NEPA claims and contend that the existence of these claims requires issuance of an injunction. The court agrees that the NEPA holding, at least as it applies to Inyo, is in serious doubt in light of its intervening decision in California v. Block, 13 ELR 20092 (9th Cir. Oct. 22, 1982) (a governmental entity that is near a proposed action and must be consulted in the environmental impact statement (EIS) process has standing to challenge the EIS). Assuming NEPA standing, however, does not materially alter the factors that the district courtconsidered in deciding to deny injunctive relief. The injury to plaintiffs is the same under NEPA and FLPMA because the claims under NEPA — that defendants failed to properly consider alternatives, to circulate documents, and respond to public comments — are essentially similar to the FLPMA claims considered by the district court. Also, addition of the NEPA claims does not materially affect the analysis of plaintiffs' likelihood of success on the merits.Therefore, the issue, assuming that plaintiffs have standing and have made a strong showing on the merits, comes down to whether the existence of a probable NEPA violation affects the district court's assessment of the public interest.

The court observes that the presence of strong NEPA claims gives rise to more liberal standards for granting an injunction because irreparable damage may be implied from the government's failure to adequately evaluate environmental impacts.However, under the court's holding in Alpine Lakes Protection Society v. Schlapfer, 5 ELR 20322 (9th Cir. May 1, 1975), a showing of a NEPA violation should not automatically lead to an injunction where enjoining the government's action would actually jeopardize natural resources. The danger of harm to the CDCA's fragile desert resources from increased recreational use militates against enjoining the plan. The possibility of the Plan reducing recreation and development opportunities poses no danger of irreparable injury to the environment or the public interest. The record supports the district court's determination that the harm to Inyo's planning process that could result from inconsistencies between the CDCA Plan and Inyo's county plan is not comparable to the harm that enjoining the CDCA Plan would cause. Also, a preliminary injunction would not resolve the uncertainties caused by the Plan since its validity will remain uncertain until a final judgment is entered. The court then notes that it was not necessary for the district court to adopt a special rule for environmental cases to ensure that the public interest would be considered. The Supreme Court's decision in Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 12 ELR 20538 (U.S. Apr. 27, 1982), requires that the public interest must be considered in any injunctive action. The court concludes that the district court's denial of the injunction was not an abuse of discretion and was based on correct legal premises.

[The case below appears at 12 ELR 20846. A related case is published at 12 ELR 21064.]

The full text of this opinion is available from ELR (6 pp. $1.25, ELR Order No. C-1336).

Counsel for Defendants-Appellees
Robert L. Klarquist
Land and Natural Resources Division
Department of Justice, Washington DC 20530
(202) 633-2731

Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellants
Robert E. Hinerfeld
Murphy, Thornton, Hinerfeld & Elson
7447 N. Figueroa St., Los Angeles CA 90041
(213) 624-9900

Schroeder, J.

[OPINION OMITTED BY PUBLISHER IN ORIGINAL SOURCE]