Dakota Rural Action v. United States Dep't Of Agric.
| Decision Date | 04 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 18-2852 (CKK) |
| Parties | DAKOTA RURAL ACTION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Since the Great Depression, the Farm Service Agency (“FSA”),[1]resident within the United States Department of Agriculture, has extended loans to family farmers. Like all agency actions, these loans are subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). After notice-and-comment rulemaking, NEPA permits agencies to categorically exempt (“CatEx”) certain agency actions from further environmental review upon finding that they do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. On August 3, 2016, FSA promulgated a new rule doing just that for, among other things, loan actions to medium-sized “concentrated animal feeding operations” (“CAFOs”). Plaintiffs argue that this rule was arbitrary and/or capricious and should be vacated pending remand. Defendants agree that the rule is procedurally infirm, but argue that the agency error was so minor that the Court should remand the rule to the agency without vacating it. The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have the better of the argument and, upon consideration of the pleadings,[2] the relevant legal authorities, and the entire record, DENIES Defendants' [31] Motion for Voluntary Remand and GRANTS Plaintiffs' [35] Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.
The central question before the Court is whether it must vacate the FSA's promulgation of a rule creating a new categorical exemption from environmental review for loan actions to medium CAFOs. The applicable statute, the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C), requires all agencies to undertake a certain degree of environmental review before effecting an agency decision or policy. Nat'l Trust for Historic Preservation in U.S. v. Dole, 828 F.2d 776, 780 (D.C. Cir. 1987). In addition to requiring an agency to consider the environmental consequences of its actions, NEPA ensures that “‘the agency will inform the public that it has indeed considered environmental concerns in its decisionmaking process.'” Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence v. Salazar, 612 F.Supp.2d 1, 13 (D.D.C. 2009) (CKK) (quoting Balt. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87, 97 (1983)).
The default for such analysis is an “environmental impact statement” (“EIS”) which, by statute, requires a particularly searching review before an agency takes an action that will “significantly affect[] the quality of the human environment.” Found. on Econ. Trends v. Heckler, 756 F.2d 143, 146 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
More commonly, however, an agency prepares an “environmental assessment” (“EA”) when environmental impact is not clearly established, in which it explains in more limited terms why an EIS is unnecessary and there will be no significant environmental impact. See id.; Dole, 828 F.2d at 780. Finally, an agency need not publish an EA if it determines that the decision falls within a category of actions that “do[es] not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.” Brady, 612 F.Supp.2d at 14 (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 1508.1(d)).
Here, FSA concluded that it need not employ any environmental analysis before taking certain loan actions to benefit medium-sized CAFOs. CAFOs are industrial operations that raise animals for harvest, including slaughter. See Gov't Accountability Office, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations: EPA Needs More Information and a Clearly Defined Strategy to Protect Air and Water Quality from Pollutants of Concern (Sept. 2008) available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/a280238.html#:~:text=This%20is%20the%20accessible%20text%20file%20for%20GAO,Concern%27%20which%20was%20released%20on%20September%2024%2C%202008 (last accessed April 4, 2023 9:03 AM). These businesses, some of which are family-owned, “raise[] animals in a confined situation for a total of 45 days or more during a 12-month period and [] bring[] feed to the animals rather than having the animals graze or seek feed in pastures and fields or on rangeland.” Id. The byproducts of these operations may have environmental consequences. Id. Among other things, FSA provides certain loan services to CAFOs. See AR001610. At issue here are loans to “medium” CAFOs, which “stable[] or confine[][:]” (1) “200 to 699 mature dairy cows, whether milked or dry;” (2) “300 to 999 veal calves;” and (3) “300 to 99 cattle,” and (4) “37,500 to 124,999 chickens;” among other categories of animals. 40 C.F.R. § 122.23(b)(6)(i). Plaintiffs challenge a new rule implementing a categorical exclusion from environmental review for these operations, 7 C.F.R. §§ 799.41(a)(9)-(10) (“Final Rule”).
Previously, FSA was required to conduct, at the very least, some degree of environmental review before providing financial assistance for most medium CAFOs. AR 000019. FSA then proposed a new rule in which FSA would use an “environmental screening worksheet” (“ESW”) to determine whether a particular loan action to a medium CAFO should require an EA. AR 001515 (Sept. 3, 2014). The proposed rule did not provide notice that FSA would forgo an ESW for loan actions to medium-sized CAFOs and instead categorically exempt those actions from NEPA review.
The record provides no indication the FSA began to consider this course of action until it received, sometime between September 2014 and August 2016, precisely one comment placed into the Federal Register, arguing in short shrift: “As proposed the provisions for medium CAFOs would be an onerous impediment to obtaining financing for operations that will often include young or beginning farmers.” AR 001610. FSA evidently inferred that the commenter viewed ESW review for the actions at issue here as overly onerous, so it replied that, under the proposed rule, “ESW review will be completed for small and medium CAFOs ....” Id.; see also AR 001515 (proposed 7 C.F.R. § 799.41(9)-(10) (Sept. 3, 2014)). In other words, FSA disagreed, and would continue onwards with ESW review. Oddly, FSA repeated the same reply to a similar comment in the notice of the Final Rule, despite reversing course in the Final Rule. See AR 001608, 001620 (Aug. 3, 2016). Again, at this time, FSA provided essentially no notice that it would reverse course in the Final Rule.
Upon exhaustive review of the record, the Court has been unable to locate FSA's reasoning for this change or the sources of data upon which FSA relied. In August 2013, it appears that FSA discussed certain new categorical exemptions, although these proposed categorical exemptions predated the August 2016 exemption for loans to mediums CAFOs. See AR 000308. There, FSA stated in conclusory fashion that it relied on “its experience implementing similar actions, the experience of other agencies, and information provided by the public.” AR 000313. The only category that has any discussion in the record is the “experience of other agencies” as to the “[p]artial or complete release of loan collateral.” AR 000329. Of this category, FSA identified only certain practices by the National Park Service which categorically exclude NEPA review only when an applicant has already demonstrated that its application would not disturb, inter alia, “the kind and amount of recreational, historical or cultural resources of the area[,] or the integrity of the existing setting.” AR 000330. The other agency practices identified utilized environmental worksheets and do not apply a categorical exemption. See AR 000329-30.
Additionally, although FSA received public comments in 2014 that argued there should be a CatEx for all loan actions to medium CAFOs, AR 001439, 1444, these comments are largely the same as the sole comment included in FSA's 2016 discussion, which repeated FSA's 2014 position. Again, because this review predates public comments in both 2014 and 2016, there is no indication in the record that FSA returned to this material when it decided to reverse course between 2014 and 2016. Moreover, the record does not indicate the extent of FSA's review of its own prior loan actions to medium CAFOs, and there is no indication that the review included loan actions to medium CAFOs.
Under Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[t]he court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” However, Am. Bioscience, Inc. v. Thompson, 269 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, “the standard set forth in Rule 56[ ] does not apply because of the limited role of a court in reviewing the administrative record ....
Summary judgment is [ ] the mechanism for deciding whether as a matter of law the agency action is supported by the administrative record and is otherwise consistent with the APA standard of review.” Southeast Conference v. Vilsack, 684 F.Supp.2d 135, 142 (D.D.C. 2010).
The APA “sets forth the full extent of judicial authority to review executive agency action for procedural correctness.” FCC v. Fox Television Stations Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 513 (2009). It requires courts to “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions” that are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). “This is a ‘narrow' standard of review as courts defer to the agency's expertise.” Ctr. for Food...
To continue reading
Request your trial