WildEarth Guardians v. Bail
| Decision Date | 07 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2:20-CV-0440-TOR |
| Parties | WILDEARTH GUARDIANS and WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT, Plaintiff, v. KRISTIN BAIL, in her official capacity as Forest Supervisor of the Okanogan- Wenatchee National Forest, and U.S. FOREST SERVICE, Defendants, and S. MARTINEZ LIVESTOCK, a Washington Corporation, Defendant-Intervenor. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Washington |
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
BEFORE THE COURT are Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 65), the Forest Service Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 69), and Defendant-Intervenor's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 71). The motions were previously set for hearing with oral argument (ECF No. 79), but the Court has determined oral argument is unnecessary pursuant to LCivR 7(i)(3)(B)(iii). Accordingly, the Court vacates the hearing set for September 22, 2022, as moot and because the present motions deserve a prompt disposition. The Court has reviewed the motions and the record, the completed briefing and is fully informed.
For the reasons discussed below, Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment are GRANTED.
This case concerns Plaintiffs WildEarth Guardians' and Western Watersheds Project's challenge to the U.S. Forest Service's authorization of domestic sheep grazing on allotments within the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. Plaintiffs complain that grazing on these allotments poses a high risk that domestic sheep will come into contact with and transmit disease to bighorn sheep, which can happen quickly and lead to die-offs of bighorn sheep herds. WildEarth Guardians is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting and restoring the wildlife, wild places, wild rivers and health of the American West and has over 188, 000 members. Western Watersheds Project is a non-profit membership organization dedicated to protecting and conserving the public lands and natural resources of watersheds in the American West and has over 12, 000 members and supporters.
Plaintiffs contend that there is a high risk of disease transmission between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep herds, affecting the latter population's viability. Plaintiffs allege that despite being aware of these risks, the Forest Service has continued to authorize grazing on the Wenatchee Allotments rather than closing these allotments, while new environmental analyses are completed. ECF No. 65. Plaintiffs argue that by continuing to authorize domestic sheep grazing, the Forest Service has violated its duties under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) to protect bighorn sheep populations and its duties under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to supplement outdated analyses and prevent an irreversible commitment of resources in the interim. Id. Plaintiffs have stated the following claims for relief pursuant to the judicial review provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706:
See ECF No. 65 at 6.
The Federal Defendants contend Plaintiffs lack standing because there is no causal connection between their alleged injury and the Forest Service's conduct. Specifically, the Forest Service contends that animals grazing on state-owned and private lands, lawful hunting, and relocation of bighorn sheep by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, is the cause for any complained of injury, none of which is controlled by the Forest Service. Additionally, there is no evidence showing that a disease outbreak among bighorns has been caused by domestic sheep from the federally managed allotments, as opposed to domestic sheep on private or state-owned land. ECF No. 69 at 22-25. The Federal Defendants further contend that the Forest Service's best management practices have effectively mitigated the risk of disease transmission. ECF No. 69 at 28-32. But most importantly, the Forest Service contends that the Federal Land Policy and Management Act precludes Plaintiffs' claims because the Forest Service has been delegated the timing of its NEPA review, which is not subject to judicial intervention. ECF No. 69 at 34-40. The Forest Service also seeks to strike extrarecord evidence.
Defendant-Intervenor S. Martinez Livestock essentially joins in the Forest Service's substantive arguments. ECF Nos. 71, 78.
A movant is entitled to summary judgment if “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a).
Agency decisions that allegedly violated NFMA and NEPA are reviewed under the APA. All. for the Wild Rockies v. United States Forest Serv., 907 F.3d 1105, 1112 (9th Cir. 2018). The APA imposes a deferential standard of review, which is limited to a determination of whether the agency acted in a manner that was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” Id.; San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 581, 601 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)). Under this standard, courts “do not substitute [their] judgment for that of the agency.'” Earth Island Inst. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 697 F.3d 1010, 1013 (9th Cir. 2012). Review is limited to the administrative record before the agency decision-maker. Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 743 (1985). The factfinding capacity of the district court is thus typically unnecessary to judicial review of agency decision making. Id. at 744. A decision should only be reversed as arbitrary and capricious “if the agency relied on factors Congress did not intend it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, or offered an explanation that runs counter to the evidence before the agency or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983).
“When a reviewing court considers evidence that was not before the agency, it inevitably leads the reviewing court to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.” San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d at 602 (quoting Asarco, Inc. v. EPA, 616 F.2d 1153, 1160 (9th Cir.1980)). Expansion of the administrative record is only allowed in four narrowly construed circumstances:
San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d at 603 .
Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 65) seeks a declaration that the Forest Service violated NEPA and NFMA by continuing to allow grazing on the Nile, Rattlesnake, Manastash, and Mosquito Ridge allotments before completing a new NEPA analysis. ECF No. 65 at 39-40. In their reply, however Plaintiffs revise their claim to say that their ECF No. 73 at 25.
Plaintiffs further argue that “[t]he Court should thus not permit the agency to indefinitely postpone completing the necessary supplemental NEPA analysis to address the conflicts between domestic and bighorn sheep on the Forest and instead should order the agency to conduct that analysis under the process and timeline stated in the Bail Declaration.” ECF No. 73 at 25.
The Forest Service contends that the Federal Land Policy and Management Act precludes Plaintiffs' claims because the Forest Service has been delegated the timing of its NEPA review, which is not subject to judicial intervention. In the meantime, the Forest Service shall continue a permit or lease until a decision has been made on any supplemental environmental analysis.
In 2014, Congress amended the Federal Land Policy and Management Act to specifically provide the following subsection:
To continue reading
Request your trial