Oregon Natural Desert Assoc. v. United States Forest Service, No. 18-35514 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Forest Service and intervenors in an action challenging the Forest Service's issuance of grazing authorizations between 2006 and 2015 on seven allotments in the Malheur National Forest. ONDA argued that the Forest Service acted arbitrarily and capriciously in its application of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) by failing to analyze and show that the grazing authorizations were consistent with the Forest Plan.
The panel held that ONDA's challenge is justiciable where the challenge was sufficiently ripe and the dispute was not moot. On the merits, the panel held that the Forest Service met its procedural and substantive obligations pursuant to the NFMA and the APA in issuing the grazing authorizations. In this case, because the Forest Service was not obligated by statute, regulation, or caselaw to memorialize each site-specific grazing authorization's consistency with the forest plan, the panel held that the absence of such a document is not in itself arbitrary and capricious. Furthermore, the Forest Service did not act arbitrarily or capriciously with respect to the NFMA's consistency requirement as applied to Standard GM-1 in issuing any of the challenged grazing authorizations. Finally, the Forest Service did not act arbitrarily or capriciously with respect to Standard 5 in issuing any of the challenged grazing authorizations.
Court Description: Environmental Law / Grazing Permits. The panel affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the U.S. Forest Service and intervenors in an action challenging the Forest Service’s issuance of grazing authorizations between 2006 and 2015 on seven allotments in the Malheur National Forest. The panel held that plaintiffs’ challenge to the contested grazing authorizations was justiciable. Specifically, the panel held that plaintiffs’ challenge was sufficiently ripe where they challenged a discrete agency action that was harmful to them. Second, the panel held that the dispute was not moot where the challenge concerned the cumulative * The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States Chief District Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation. ONDA V. USFS 3 effects of grazing on bull trout habitats and was a sufficiently live controversy which the court could address. The panel rejected plaintiffs’ procedural challenge. Because the Forest Service was not obligated by statute, regulation, or caselaw to memorialize each site-specific grazing authorization’s consistency with the Forest Plan, the absence of such a document was not in itself arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act and the National Forest Management Act (“NMFA”). The panel construed plaintiffs’ appeal as implicitly challenging the substantive consistency of the challenged grazing authorizations as well. Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH) Standard GM-1 requires the agency to modify its grazing practices to the extent they prevent attainment of Riparian Management Objectives or are likely to adversely affect inland native fish. The panel deferred to the Forest Service’s expertise in determining whether, given the many factors at play, and given its extensive monitoring and enforcement activities protecting bull trout habitats, it must modify or suspend grazing activity in order to comply with Standard GM-1. The panel held that the Forest Service did not act arbitrarily or capriciously with respect to the NFMA’s consistency requirement as applied to Standard GM-1 in issuing any of the challenged grazing authorizations. Forest Plan Management Area 3A Standard 5 provides the necessary habitat to maintain or increase populations of management indicator species. The panel held that the Forest Service’s ongoing site-specific monitoring, analysis, and enforcement activities aimed at protecting and improving bull trout habitats were reasonable means of 4 ONDA V. USFS ensuring consistency with Standard 5. The panel concluded that the Forest Service did not act arbitrarily or capriciously with respect to Standard 5 in issuing any of the challenged grazing authorizations.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.