Center for Food Safety v. Salazar
898 F. Supp. 2d 130
D.D.C.2012Background
- The Refuge System covers extensive lands and FWS evaluated GM corn/soy in Region 3 via a programmatic EA and final FONSI.
- Draft EA analyzed four alternatives; the Final EA selected Alternative E which allows GM crops only for habitat restoration and caps use at five years per tract.
- The Final EA found no significant environmental impact, avoiding a full Environmental Impact Statement.
- Plaintiffs allege NEPA violations and NWRSAA/Improvement Act violations based on failure to prepare an EIS and failure to make crop-specific compatibility determinations.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; the court addresses standing, NEPA merits, and NWRSAA/Improvement Act issues.
- The court ultimately grants the Defendants’ summary judgment on both counts, upholding the agency action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| NEPA adequacy of the EA and FONSI | Plaintiffs argue the EA lacked a hard look at impacts and needed an EIS. | Defendants contend the EA adequately considered impacts and a FONSI was appropriate. | EA and FONSI are adequate; no EIS required. |
| Standing | Plaintiffs claim associational standing based on members’ injuries and organizational objectives. | Defendants contend standing is lacking without member-specific injury at each refuge. | Plaintiffs have associational standing; injuries to members shown and redressable. |
| NWRSAA Compatibility Determinations | Defendants relied on general farming CDs rather than crop-specific CDs; alleged noncompliance. | NWRSAA allows farming as a compatible use; crop-specific CDs are not required. | General farming CDs satisfy NWRSAA; no crop-specific CDs required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Nat. Resources Def. Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87 (U.S. 1983) (NEPA requires hard look; not all consequences must occur)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing requires injury, causation, redressability)
- Sierra Club v. Van Antwerp, 661 F.3d 1147 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (four-factor test for adequacy of NEPA analysis)
- TOMAC v. Norton, 433 F.3d 852 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (hard look NEPA framework and deference to agency)
- Delaware Audubon Soc’y, Inc. v. Sec’y of the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 829 F. Supp. 2d 273 (D. Del. 2011) (reasonableness of EA and thorough consideration of alternatives)