369 F. Supp. 3d 141
D.C. Cir.2019Background
- FWS designated ~1.8 million acres in California as critical habitat for two Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog species (listed endangered) and the Yosemite toad (listed threatened) and certified that a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis was unnecessary.
- The Forest Service, which authorizes grazing on National Forest allotments, consulted with FWS under ESA §7 and incorporated 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (S&G) grazing standards and monitoring practices into biological opinions (2014 BiOp; Three Amphibian BO).
- The California Cattlemen's Association, California Wool Growers Association, and California Farm Bureau Federation (the Cattlemen) sued, arguing FWS violated the RFA by failing to analyze impacts on small entities (ranchers) because §7 consultations and resulting permit conditions burden small permit holders.
- Plaintiffs submitted member declarations (notably Sherri Brennan and Marianna Leinassar) alleging delays, increased monitoring, and stricter utilization/season restrictions on grazing permits tied to the critical-habitat designation.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of standing and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment; the court considered traceability, imminence, and redressability at summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing: injury-in-fact from consultation participation and delays | Cattlemen: members incurred time and costs participating in §7 consultations and experienced permit delays and new permit conditions caused by the Final Rule | Gov: participation was voluntary, alleged negotiation costs are not cognizable injury, and delays/conditions trace to pre-existing listings and Forest Service actions, not the Final Rule | No standing: plaintiffs failed to prove a concrete, traceable, and redressable injury attributable to the Final Rule |
| Traceability: Final Rule caused permit modifications (utilization, monitoring, S&G 53 application) | Cattlemen: the Final Rule prompted §7 BOs that led the Forest Service to change permit terms and apply S&G 53 more strictly | Gov: permit terms derived from earlier 2004 S&G and 2014 BiOp; evidence shows many changes predate or are independent of the Final Rule | Held for defendants: plaintiffs did not show substantial probability that permit changes were caused by the Final Rule |
| Imminence / future harm from reinitiated consultations | Cattlemen: future consultations and restrictions are likely and plaintiffs face ongoing threats | Gov: past consultations are complete; any future consultations are speculative and would arise from listings (jeopardy), not the critical-habitat rule | Held: harms are not imminent; speculative risk insufficient for standing |
| Redressability: invalidating Final Rule would remedy alleged injuries | Cattlemen: vacatur/relief would prevent future §7-driven burdens on small entities | Gov: Forest Service (not a party) issues permits and would still have obligations under listing and pre-existing S&Gs; relief would not reliably change permit terms | Held: redress too speculative; vacatur would likely not redress plaintiffs' asserted harms |
Key Cases Cited
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (Scotus 2016) (standing requires concrete injury)
- Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Scotus 1992) (three-part standing test: injury, traceability, redressability)
- Sierra Club v. FERC, 827 F.3d 59 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (associational standing requirements)
- WildEarth Guardians v. Jewell, 738 F.3d 298 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (associational standing elements)
- Sierra Club v. EPA, 292 F.3d 895 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (substantial-probability standing standard)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (Scotus 2013) (no standing for speculative future harms)
- Dearth v. Holder, 641 F.3d 499 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (past injuries alone insufficient for prospective relief)
- Summer v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (Scotus 2009) (immediacy requirement for standing)
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (Scotus 1975) (organizational standing depends on member standing)
- Grocery Mfrs. Ass'n v. EPA, 693 F.3d 169 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (jurisdictional standing principles)