A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has declined to order the Interior Department to withdraw its legal filings in a case in Oregon challenging the Western Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR) on BLM lands (Douglas Timber Operators v. Salazar, 09-1704 JDB, D.D.C.).
U.S. District Judge John Bates previously found that DOI Secretary Ken Salazar’s withdrawal of the Bush Administration WOPR was illegal.
Pacific Rivers Council, which has sued BLM in Oregon over the revisions, asked Bates to issue an order under the All Writs Act “to enjoin the Secretary from making similar filings relying on the vacated and remanded withdrawal.” PRC argued that “Interior seeks to
frustrate this Court’s order with filings in the Oregon case that rely on the vacated and remanded withdrawal.”
Here’s some background from the opinion, issued today (Dec. 23). The first paragraph discusses Bates’ previous opinion.
After considering the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, the court rejected the Department’s argument. The Court concluded that “the Secretary lacked inherent authority to withdraw the 2008 ROD without following the procedures required under the FLPMA, and his decision to do so violated the APA.” Id. at 259. The court therefore granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment with respect to the withdrawal of the ROD, vacating and remanding the withdrawal back to the Department.
In so holding, the court stated that “the legal issue of whether the Secretary’s failure to consult under the ESA prior to approving the ROD in December 2008 ‘was erroneous’ is not properly before this Court.” Id. at 258. Rather, the court stated that the question before it was ”whether the Secretary’s decision to withdraw the ROD without formal proceedings under the FLPMA or the APA based on his conclusion of ‘legal error’ was arbitrary and capricious or in excess of statutory authority.” Id. at 258 n.1. The court also noted that “three challenges to the BLM’s alleged failure to consult under the ESA were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon shortly after the December 2008 approval of the ROD.” Id. (citing Oregon Wild v. Shepard, Civ. No. 3:09–00060 (D. Or. filed Jan. 15, 2009); Pacific Rivers Council v. Shepard, Civ. No. 3:09–00058 (D. Or. filed Jan. 15, 2009); Forest Serv. Emp. for Env’t Ethics v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., 09–6019 (D. Or. filed Jan. 22, 2009)). Finally, the court noted that “because this court is remanding the Secretary’s withdrawal decision, the future record may shed additional light on the reasoning of the Secretary regarding the Western Oregon Plan Revisions ROD.” Douglas Timber, 774 F. Supp. 2d at 261.
