Seattle Audubon Soc. v. Espy, Nos. 92-36529

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtAppeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington William L. Dwyer; SCHROEDER
Citation998 F.2d 699
Parties, 23 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,148 SEATTLE AUDUBON SOCIETY; Pilchuck Audubon Society; Washington Environmental Council; Washington Native Plants Society, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Mike ESPY, * in his official capacity as Secretary of Agriculture; United States Forest Service, an agency of the United States, Defendants-Appellants, and Washington Contract Loggers Ass'n, et al., Defendants-Intervenors-Appellants. SEATTLE AUDUBON SOCIETY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mike ESPY, * in his official capacity as Secretary of Agriculture; United States Forest Service, an agency of the United States, Defendants-Appellees, and Washington Contract Loggers Ass'n, et al., Defendants-Intervenors-Appellees.
Decision Date08 July 1993
Docket NumberNos. 92-36529,92-36560 and 92-36564

Page 699

998 F.2d 699
37 ERC 1902, 23 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,148
SEATTLE AUDUBON SOCIETY; Pilchuck Audubon Society;
Washington Environmental Council; Washington
Native Plants Society, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
Mike ESPY, * in his official capacity as
Secretary of Agriculture; United States Forest
Service, an agency of the United States,
Defendants-Appellants,
and
Washington Contract Loggers Ass'n, et al.,
Defendants-Intervenors-Appellants.
SEATTLE AUDUBON SOCIETY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Mike ESPY, * in his official capacity
as Secretary of Agriculture; United States Forest
Service, an agency of the United States,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
Washington Contract Loggers Ass'n, et al.,
Defendants-Intervenors-Appellees.
Nos. 92-36529, 92-36560 and 92-36564.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Nov. 4, 1992.
Decided July 8, 1993.

Page 701

Todd D. True and Victor M. Sher, Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Seattle, WA, for Seattle Audubon Soc., plaintiffs-appellees-cross-appellants.

Mark Rutzick, Preston, Thorgrimson, Shidler, Gates & Ellis, Portland, OR, for Washington Contract Loggers Ass'n defendants-intervenors-appellants-cross-appellees.

Anne S. Almy, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for Forest Service defendants-appellants-cross-appellees.

Kevin Q. Davis, Stoel, Rives, Boley, Jones & Grey, Portland, OR, for The Ass'n of O & C Counties and Benton County, defendants-intervenors-appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington William L. Dwyer, District Judge, Presiding.

Before: GOODWIN, SCHROEDER, and PREGERSON, Circuit Judges.

SCHROEDER, Circuit Judge:

The United States Forest Service and Washington Contract Loggers Association, et al. (WCLA) each appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment and permanent injunctive relief in favor of Seattle Audubon Society (SAS). SAS challenged the Forest Service's Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision adopting the Interagency Scientific Committee's Report as the Forest Service's spotted owl management plan. The district court held that adoption of the Interagency Scientific Committee (ISC) Report without consideration of alternatives, and without consideration of intervening information on the status of the owl violated the National Forest Management Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1604 (NFMA) and the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-47 (NEPA). In so holding, the district court rejected the defendants' contentions that plaintiffs lacked standing and that the dispute was not ripe. We affirm.

In appeal no. 92-36560, SAS cross-appeals the portion of the district court's March 28, 1992 judgment holding that the Forest Service was not obligated to promulgate independent regulations ensuring that critical owl habitat will not be destroyed or adversely modified. We grant WCLA's motion to dismiss the cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction because there was no final, appealable order.

BACKGROUND

In Seattle Audubon Soc'y v. Evans, 952 F.2d 297 (9th Cir.1991) (Evans ), we affirmed the district court's judgment that the Forest Service had violated the NFMA by failing to prepare a plan for managing suitable spotted owl habitat in the national forests of Washington, Oregon and northern California. We also affirmed the district court's order permanently enjoining timber sales in owl habitat pending the Forest Service's preparation of an owl management plan in accordance with the requirements of both NFMA and NEPA.

As a result of our opinion in Evans, the Forest Service published a final environmental impact statement (EIS) for its management plan for spotted owl habitat on January 31, 1992. By its March 3, 1992 record of decision (ROD), the Service adopted regional guide amendments incorporating the recommendations of the ISC as its owl management plan. The so-called ISC Strategy has two major components. First, the plan delineates "habitat conservation areas" (HCAs) where logging would be prohibited. Second, the plan regulates the rate of cutting on forest lands between HCAs so that half of this land would provide for the safe dispersal of owls at all times through the use of the "50/11/40" rule. See generally Seattle Audubon Soc'y v. Evans, 771 F.Supp. 1081, 1092-93 (W.D.Wash.1991), aff'd., 952 F.2d at 297.

SAS then filed this action in district court challenging the ROD and the EIS as violative of NEPA and the NFMA. The district court granted SAS's cross-motion for summary judgment on SAS's NEPA claims, granted partial summary judgment in favor

Page 702

of the Forest Service on one of SAS's NFMA claims and struck the remainder of SAS's NFMA claims without prejudice to renewal upon the Service's completion of a supplemental EIS. Subsequently, the district court granted a permanent injunction prohibiting the Forest Service from auctioning or awarding any additional timber sales until the Forest Service adopts and implements revised standards and guidelines for the management of spotted owl habitat which comply with both NEPA and NFMA, 798 F.Supp. 1473. The district court ordered these guidelines to be in effect by August 20, 1993. Both the Forest Service and WCLA timely appeal. SAS timely cross-appeals.
STANDING AND RIPENESS

The Forest Service contends that SAS lacks standing to challenge its decision to adopt regional guide amendments incorporating the ISC Strategy because no SAS member has demonstrated actual or imminent injury as required under Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, --- U.S. ----, ---- & n. 2, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 2138 & n. 2, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) ("Defenders").

The Supreme Court in Defenders said that to establish standing, a plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact"--an invasion of a legally-protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized; and (b) "actual or imminent, not 'conjectural' or hypothetical." Id. at ----, 112 S.Ct. at 2136 (citations omitted). There must also be a "causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of--the injury has to be fairly ... trace[able] to the challenged action of defendant, and not ... th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court." Id. (citations and internal quotations omitted). Finally, it must be "likely" as opposed to "speculative" that the injury can be redressed by a favorable decision. Id. The Court relied on its prior standing cases going back to Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 43 S.Ct. 597, 67 L.Ed. 1078 (1923) to hold that members of environmental groups in the United States lacked standing to challenge a rule affecting funding decisions overseas.

In support of its position that SAS lacked standing to bring this action, the Forest Service relies...

To continue reading

Request your trial
76 practice notes
  • Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, No. 01-35472.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • December 12, 2002
    ...the ultimate outcome following proper procedures will benefit them." Cantrell, 241 F.3d at 682; see also Seattle Audubon Soc'y v. Espy, 998 F.2d 699, 702 (9th Cir.1993); Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 572 n. 7, 112 S.Ct. 2130. It is enough that a revised EIS may redress plaintiffs' alle......
  • Habitat Educ. Center, Inc. v. Bosworth, No. 03C1024.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • August 8, 2005
    ...reasoned response to it." Seattle Audubon Soc'y v. Lyons, 871 F.Supp. 1291, 1318 (W.D.Wash.1994); see also Seattle Audubon Soc'y v. Espy, 998 F.2d 699, 704 (9th Cir.1993) (finding that the Forest Service was required to address in the final EIS scientific criticisms opposing evidence upon w......
  • Zen Magnets, LLC v. Consumer Prod. Safety Comm'n, No. 14-9610
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • November 22, 2016
    ...collected under its current regime showed a marked downward trend in relevant hospital discharge times); Seattle Audubon Soc. v. Espy, 998 F.2d 699, 703–04 (9th Cir. 1993) (finding that an agency preparing an environmental impact statement erred in failing to address an intervening, indepen......
  • N.C. Alliance for Transp. Reform v. D.O.T., No. 1:99CV00134.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Middle District of North Carolina
    • June 4, 2001
    ...identical to the analysis in the DEIS. (Compare DEIS at 4-42 to 4-43 with FEIS at 4-48 to 4-49).32 In Seattle Audubon Soc. v. Espy, 998 F.2d 699 (9th Cir.1993), the court found an environmental impact statement inadequate in part because of its reliance on stale scientific evidence. See id.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
74 cases
  • Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, No. 01-35472.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • December 12, 2002
    ...the ultimate outcome following proper procedures will benefit them." Cantrell, 241 F.3d at 682; see also Seattle Audubon Soc'y v. Espy, 998 F.2d 699, 702 (9th Cir.1993); Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 572 n. 7, 112 S.Ct. 2130. It is enough that a revised EIS may redress plaintiffs' alle......
  • Habitat Educ. Center, Inc. v. Bosworth, No. 03C1024.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • August 8, 2005
    ...reasoned response to it." Seattle Audubon Soc'y v. Lyons, 871 F.Supp. 1291, 1318 (W.D.Wash.1994); see also Seattle Audubon Soc'y v. Espy, 998 F.2d 699, 704 (9th Cir.1993) (finding that the Forest Service was required to address in the final EIS scientific criticisms opposing evidence upon w......
  • Zen Magnets, LLC v. Consumer Prod. Safety Comm'n, No. 14-9610
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • November 22, 2016
    ...collected under its current regime showed a marked downward trend in relevant hospital discharge times); Seattle Audubon Soc. v. Espy, 998 F.2d 699, 703–04 (9th Cir. 1993) (finding that an agency preparing an environmental impact statement erred in failing to address an intervening, indepen......
  • N.C. Alliance for Transp. Reform v. D.O.T., No. 1:99CV00134.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Middle District of North Carolina
    • June 4, 2001
    ...identical to the analysis in the DEIS. (Compare DEIS at 4-42 to 4-43 with FEIS at 4-48 to 4-49).32 In Seattle Audubon Soc. v. Espy, 998 F.2d 699 (9th Cir.1993), the court found an environmental impact statement inadequate in part because of its reliance on stale scientific evidence. See id.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Advising Noah: A Legal Analysis of Assisted Migration
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter Nbr. 39-5, May 2009
    • May 1, 2009
    ...U.S.C. §1604(g)(3)(B) (2007). 81. 36 C.F.R. §219.26 (2000). 82. 36 C.F.R. §219.19 (2000). 83. See, e.g ., Seattle Audubon Soc’y v. Espy, 998 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1993); Seattle Audubon Soc’y v. Evans, 952 F.2d 297 (9th Cir. 1991). limits of Agency authorities, the capability of the plan area,......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT