447 F.Supp.3d 965
D. Ariz.2020Background
- Plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity and Rep. Raúl Grijalva challenge DHS/CBP's failure to prepare a new or supplemental programmatic NEPA analysis (SPEIS/PEIS) for southern border enforcement activities since the 2001 SPEIS.
- Historical programmatic analyses: DoD/INS prepared a 1994 Programmatic EIS and a 2001 Supplemental PEIS related to JTF‑6 support for border enforcement; Plaintiffs allege massive post‑2001 changes (new DHS, more agents, roads, walls, lighting, sensors) with environmental impacts beyond those analyzed.
- Defendants lodged an administrative record covering a six‑year window (April 12, 2011–April 12, 2017), asserted there is no single DHS “southern border enforcement program,” and that certain documents do not exist or are privileged.
- Plaintiffs moved to complete the administrative record, to supplement with extra‑record evidence, and for judicial notice of Federal Register final rules designating/revising critical habitat.
- The Court applied Ninth Circuit authorities balancing APA record‑review principles with the relaxed treatment of supplementation in some ESA citizen‑suit cases, and ordered completion/supplementation in part while upholding protection for predecisional deliberative documents.
- Relief ordered: defendants must add specified NEPA/JTF‑6 documents and pre‑2017 materials (excluding protected predecisional/deliberative parts), permit limited extra‑record supplementation (CBP road network and daily operations materials), allow citation of 27 Fish & Wildlife Service Federal Register rules, and set a summary‑judgment briefing schedule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of administrative record | CBD: whole record includes NEPA documents tiering to 1994 PEIS/2001 SPEIS and pre‑2011 materials relevant to whether agency should have supplemented | Gov: record limited; no single program exists; six‑year window appropriate; some docs don’t exist | Court: ordered supplementation with NEPA/tiering and pre‑2017 materials (if non‑deliberative) and JTF‑6 records where relevant; denied supplementation as to non‑existent documents |
| Use of extra‑record evidence for ESA claims | CBD: ESA citizen‑suit allows broader extra‑record evidence (parity with gov’t declarations) | Gov: APA confines review; Kraayenbrink should not be read to allow wholesale de novo review | Court: adopted middle path — apply traditional Lands Council exceptions but relax narrowness for ESA claims; allowed limited extra‑record supplementation (CBP road network and daily operations) |
| Existence of a programmatic NEPA obligation (programmatic challenge) | CBD: historical PEIS/SPEIS and subsequent actions suggest a programmatic analysis and possible duty to supplement | Gov: no DHS program for entire southern border; programmatic challenge is impermissible | Court: declined to resolve existence of a program at this stage; permitted document production to inform whether a programmatic analysis/supplement was required |
| Deliberative process privilege for internal communications | CBD: internal communications bear on whether agency considered relevant factors; redactions conceal relevant material | Gov: predecisional deliberative materials are privileged and may be withheld | Court: balanced factors and upheld privilege for predecisional/deliberative documents overall but required a privilege log and disclosure of non‑privileged or non‑deliberative material |
| Judicial notice of Federal Register critical‑habitat rules | CBD: rules are judicially noticeable and relevant to environmental context | Gov: relevance disputed; FR notices should be treated as supplementation requests under APA limits | Held: Court will take judicial notice if cited/provided and if contents meet Rule 201 standard; allowed Plaintiffs to cite the 27 FR final rules |
Key Cases Cited
- Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138 (administrative‑record review principle)
- Portland Audubon Soc'y v. Endangered Species Comm., 984 F.2d 1534 (9th Cir.) (administrative record = everything before agency)
- Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir.) (exceptions permitting supplementation)
- Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n, 497 U.S. 871 (programmatic challenge limits)
- Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390 (agency discretion re: program decisions)
- Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness All., 542 U.S. 55 (court may compel non‑discretionary duties only)
- Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644 (arbitrary and capricious review scope)
- Western Watersheds Project v. Kraayenbrink, 632 F.3d 472 (9th Cir.) (ESA citizen‑suit supplementation discussion)
- Karuk Tribe of Cal. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 681 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir.) (ESA/APA interplay)