Oregon Natural Desert Ass'n et al v. U.S. Forest Service et al
Filing
147
ORDER: As no clear error appears on the face of the record, the court declines to modify or set aside the Order issued on September 12, 2008, pertaining to plaintiffs' Motion Regarding Scope of Review (# 115 ). Defendants' amended objections, (# 132 ) in 2:08-cv-01871-SU & (#67) in 2:08-cv-00151-SU, are overruled. Signed on January 9, 2009 by Chief Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. Associated Cases: 2:07-cv-01871-SU, 2:08-cv-00151-SU (eo)
<![CDATA[
IN T H E UNITED STATES DISTRICT C O U R T F O R THE DISTRICT OF O R E G O N
OREGON NATURAL DESERT ASSOCIATION, C E N T E R FOR B I O L O G I C A L D I V E R S I T Y , a n d WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT, Plaintiffs,
v.
ORDER C i v i l No. 0 7 - l 8 7 1 - S U
A B I G A I L K I M B E L L , C h i e f , U.S. F o r e s t S e r v i c e , G A R Y L. BENES, Supervisor, Malhcur National Forest, U N I T E D S T A T E S F O R E S T S E R V I C E , D. R O B E R T LOHN, Regional Administrator, N a t i o n a l M a r i n e F i s h e r i e s S e r v i c e , and N A T I O N A L MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, Defendants,
v.
H A R L E Y ALLEN, S H E R R I E A L L E N , KENNETH R. BROOKS, R O B E R T L. BROOKS, MARY ELLEN BROOKS, RON BURNETTE, J&M COOMBS RANCH, LLC, M O N T Y C R U M , DAYVILLE GRAZING A S S O C I A n O N , E L L I O T T L I V E S T O C K C O M P A N Y , INC., H O L L I D A Y LAND & L I V E S T O C K , INC., D A R R E L HOLLIDAY RANCH, INC., PETER G. McELLIGOTT, N A N C Y J. McELLIGOTT, LELAND F. McGIRR, JR., M O R G R A S S G R A Z I N G ASSOCIATION, R O C K Y BLUFF RANCH, L O R E N S T O U T , P I P E R S T O U T , T R I N I - D , LLC, V A U G H A N R A N C H , INC., W I N D Y P O I N T CATTLE CO. INC., 41 RANCHES, LLC, dba 41 RANCHES, and C H E T HETTINGA, Intervenors.
I -- O R D E R
HAGGERTY, C h i e f Judge: After this court granted plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and/or P r e l i m i n a r y I n j u n c t i o n , t h e M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e in t h i s a c t i o n g r a n t e d p l a i n t i f f s ' M o t i o n R e g a r d i n g Scope o f Review [115]. Defendants filed amended objections to this ruling [132], which were takcn under adviscment after being fully bricfed. Defendants' amended objections are overruled. STANDARDS Non-dispositivc orders o f a Magistrate Judge are reviewed by this court under the "clearly erroneous [or] contrary to law" standard. 28 U . S . c . § 636(b)(I)(A). Such rulings are not subject to de novo review as are Findings and Recommendations under §636(b)(I )(B). Merritt v. Int? Bro. a/BOilermakers, 649 F.2d 1013, 1017 (5th Cir. 1981) (per curiam). B A C K G R O U N D AND A N A L Y S I S Plaintiffs Oregon Natural Desert Association, Center for Biological Diversity, and Western Watersheds Project (collectively referred to as ONDA) filed a Complaint challenging c e r t a i n d e c i s i o n s b y t h e United S t a t e s F o r e s t S e r v i c e ( F o r e s t S e r v i c e ) a n d t h e National M a r i n e F i s h e r i e s S e r v i c e ( N M F S ) that a u t h o r i z e d l i v e s t o c k g r a z i n g o n t h e M a l h c u r National F o r e s t ( M N F ) w i t h i n t h c John D a y R i v e r basin. P l a i n t i f f s allege v i o l a t i o n s o f t h e E n d a n g e r e d S p e c i e s Act (ESA), National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and Administrative Procedure Act (APA). This case was consolidated with Allen v. N a t i o n a l Marine Fisheries Service, No. 08-151-SU (D. Or. filed Feb. 5 , 2 0 0 8 ) , a case brought by ranchers who hold grazing livestock permits o n the MNF. The factual background, applicable statutory and regulatory provisions, claims asscrted and r e l i e f and standards for judicial review have b e e n provided in detail previously and, for
2 -- O R D E R
purposes o f d e t e n n i n i n g w h e t h e r the Magistrate Judge's ruling was clearly erroneous, need not be r e v i e w e d a g a i n herein. T h e Magistrate Judge's challenged Order allows ONDA to introduce evidence, including expert reports and evidence obtained through discovery, to prove its claims o f violations o f ESA §§ 7 and 9. T h e Magistrate Judge agreed with O N D A that extra-record evidence is necessary for plaintiffs to meet the burden o f p r o o f required for obtaining injunctive r e l i e f pursuant to the ESA citizen suit provision. See 16 U.S.C. § 1 5 4 0 ( g ) ( l ) ( A ) . To establish their ESA §7 claim, ONDA seeks to introduce evidence obtained after a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e c i s i o n s w e r e i s s u e d , i n c l u d i n g d o c u m e n t a t i o n and e x p e r t e v i d e n c e . T o e s t a b l i s h their ESA §9 claim, O N D A will present evidence similar in nature to that which was submitted in support o f the motion for preliminary injunction. O N D A advances claims that go beyond calling for the review o f administrative agency decisions under the AP A. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge's ruling that allows ONDA to g a t h e r and p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e o u t s i d e o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e c o r d w a s not c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , p l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m s t h a t a r i s e u n d e r t h e ESA C i t i z e n S u i t P r o v i s i o n ( e i g h t h c l a i m , fourth claim, ninth claim) may be supported b y t h e production o f evidence that is not restricted o r limited to the administrative record. Claims arising under the APA (first claim, second claim, third claim, fourth claim, fifth claim, sixth claim, seventh claim) may be supported b y evidence and references to the administrative record, plus evidence outside the administrative record that falls into four categories: ( I ) i f its admission is necessary to d e t e n n i n e whether the agency has considered all relevant factors and has explained its decision; (2) i f t h e agency has relied o n documents not in the record; (3) when supplementing the record is necessary to explain technical
3 -- O R D E R
terms o r c o m p l e x subject matter; (4) when p l a i n t i f f s m a k e a s h o w i n g o f agency b a d faith.
Ranchers Cattlemen Action L e g a l F u n d United S t o c kgrowers o fAmerica v.
u.s. Dept o f
A g r i c u l t u r e , 4 9 9 F . 3 d 1108, 1117 ( 9 t h Cir. 2 0 0 7 ) . T h e M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e a c k n o w l e d g e d t h i s a n d
a s s u r e d t h e p a r t i e s t h a t t h e c o u r t will c o m p l y w i t h a p p r o p r i a t e p r o c e d u r e s f o r d e t e r m i n i n g allowable extra-record evidence. See O r d e r o f S e p t e m b e r 1 2 , 2 0 0 8 at 4-5. D e f e n d a n t s o b j e c t to t h e M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e ' s O r d e r , a s s e r t i n g t w o a r g u m e n t s : t h a t t h e Magistr ate J u d g e clearly erred b y c o n c l u d i n g t h a t (1) E S A C i t i z e n S u i t s are n o t confined to r e v i e w o n t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e c o r d , a n d (2) t h e i n c l u s i o n o f e x t r a - r e c o r d m a t e r i a l d u r i n g t h e e v a l u a t i o n o f plaintiffs' p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n m o t i o n c o m p e l s s i m i l a r i n c l u s i o n o f t h e m a t e r i a l s when t h e c a s e is adjudicated o n the merits.
1.
E S A Citizen Suits
First, defendants contend that recent N i n t h C i r c u i t c a s e law instructs a r e v i e w i n g court in these situations to l o o k to the e v i d e n c e an agency has p r o v i d e d , "along with other materials in t h e record," to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e agency h a s a d e q u a t e l y e x p l a i n e d its r e a s o n i n g and conclusions.
Lands Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981, 9 9 3 - 9 4 ( 9 t h Cir. 2008). T h e decision in McNair
a d d r e s s e s t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f t h e A P A ' s " a r b i t r a r y a n d c a p r i c i o u s " s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w , b u t is n o t dispositive as to d e t e r m i n i n g the s c o p e o f a l l o w a b l e e v i d e n c e in ESA c l a i m cases. Similarly, as to plaintiffs' E S A §7 claims, d e f e n d a n t s argue that it is error to allow e x p e r t testimony when r e v i e w i n g o f E S A §7(a)(2) c l a i m s b e c a u s e such c l a i m s are subject to r e v i e w u n d e r l h e "arbitrary and capricious" standard o f t h e APA. See Stop H-3 Ass'n v. Dole, 740 F.2d 1442, 1459 (9th Cir. 1984); s e e also S W Clr. f o r Biological Diversity v.
u.s. Bureau o f
4 --ORDER
Reclamation, 143 F.3d 515, 522 (9th Cir. 1998) (reviewing claims are brought under ESA §7(a)(2) under the APA's j u d i c i a l r e v i e w p r o v i s i o n s ) . As to plaintiffs' ESA §9 claims, defendants argue that although plaintiffs present their E S A §9 claims as being independent from their E S A §7 claims, "the two claims are necessarily intertwined, and both go to the issue o f whether an agency's administration o f its Congressionally delegated area o f responsibility is meeting the §7 duty to avoid j e o p a r d y to a listed species." Objections at 11-12. Defendants cite a Fifth Circuit decision for the proposition that while the ESA Citizen Suit Provision permits review for ESA §7 and ESA §9, it does not establish a standard for that review, and the APA should provide the standard o f review for ESA §9 claims against federal agencies. Objections at 12 (citing Sierra Club v. Glickman, 67 F.3d 90, 95-96 (5th Cir. 1995). The Fifth Circuit's decision in Glickman is unhelpful. That decision is as silent as McNair is on the issue o f determining the scope o f allowable evidence for evaluating p l a i n t i f f s ' claims. This court concludes that the Magistrate Judge did not clearly err in concluding that "claims arising under the ESA are not limited to the administrative record review restrictions o f the AP A." Order o f September 12, 2008 at 4. T h e Magistrate Judge relied upon Ninth Circuit a u t h o r i t y that approved o f j u d i c i a l review o f a s u i t b r o u g h t u n d e r the E S A C i t i z e n S u i t P r o v i s i o n that was undertaken outside an administrative record, "because the ESA independently authorized a right o f action" and renders the AP A limitations inapplicable. Wash. Toxies Coalition v. E.P.A., 413 F.3d 1024, 1029-30 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing 16 U.S.C. § 1 5 4 0 ( g ) ( I » . Accordingly, the scope o f judicial review in a claim brought under the ESA Citizen Suit Provis:ion m a y not b e subject to AP A limitations. Wash. Taxies, 413 F.3d at 1034.
5 -- ORDER
Defendants' specific objections to plaintiffs' ESA §9 claims are also rejected. In short, this court agrees with plaintiffs' assertion that "[ w ]hatever evidence ONDA can develop to prove that unlawful take has occurred is appropriate," which will enable the court to fully determine whether the Forest Service violated ESA §9 "by allowing the exeessive take o f steel head spawmng and rearing habitat through its grazing management." Pis. Response at 18. Section 9 o f the ESA prohibits the "take o f endangered species o f f i s h o r wildlife." To prevail o n these claims, p l a i n t i f f s must p r o v e b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f e v i d e n c e t h a t the F o r e s t Service's a c t i o n s resulted in an unlawful take o f steel head and that take is reasonably certain to occur under the M a l h e u r N a t i o n a l F o r e s t ' s 2 0 0 7 - 2 0 1 1 g r a z i n g m a n a g e m e n t p r o g r a m . Plaintiffs a c k n o w l e d g e that they must prove that the Forest Service's aetions o r omissions in its grazing management harmed protected species by killing o r injuring its members, o r resulted in significant habitat m o d i f i e a t i o n o r d e g r a d a t i o n w h i c h injured s t e e l h e a d b y s i g n i f i c a n t l y i m p a i r i n g e s s e n t i a l behavioral patterns, and that these effects are reasonably certain to continue in the future. PIs. Response at 13- I 4 (citations omitted). These claims do not challenge speeific administrative decisions. Instead they advance an enforcement action and require p r o o f o f harm and causation. Defendants may b e subject to such claims. The United States Supreme Court has recognized that the E S A Citizen Suit Provision at § I 540(g)(I)(A) "is a means by which private parties may enforce the substantive provisions o f the ESA against regulated parties - both private entities and Government agencies." Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 173 (1997). Claims challenging the propriety o f a eonsulting agency issuing a biological opinion is governed by the APA. Id. at 174. Claims arising directly under the ESA Citizen Suit Provision at § I 540(g)(l )(A), on the other hand, based upon events
6 -- O R D E R
occurring in the aftermath o f agency decisions, are not limited by the A P A scope o f review.
Wash. Taxies, 413 F.3d at 1034.
2. E x t r a - r e c o r d material d u r i n g t h e p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n m o t i o n
Defendants also contend that the Magistrate Judge clearly erred in concluding that extrarecord material m u s t b e allowed because it was included in the evaluation o f plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion. Objections at 15-17. The target o f this objection is this passage: "Moreover, the court considered this same evidence in making the determination to issue a preliminary injunction in this matter. For the court n.ow to reverse direction and prohibit the evidence would be inconsistent with [the prior preliminary injunction] ruling and contrary to the ESA." Order o f September 12, 2008 at 4. At the very least, as addressed above, this statement is not clearly erroneous because prohibiting extra-record evidence in the adjudication o f the ESA claims presented by plaintiffs would, be, in fact, contrary to the ESA. This aspect o f defendants' objections is also overruled. CONCLUSION As no clear error appears o n the face o f the record, the court declines to modify o r set aside the Order issued o n September 12, 2008, pertaining to plaintiffs' Motion Regarding Scope o f Review [115]. Defendants' amended objections [132] are overruled. IT IS SO ORDERED. D A T E D this
----1..-- day of January, 2009.
~LRi¥ AGE
A N C E R L. United States District J u d g e 7 -- O R D E R
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
