Humane Society of the United States v. Locke
626 F.3d 1040
| 9th Cir. | 2010Background
- NMFS authorized Oregon, Washington, and Idaho to lethally remove up to 85 California sea lions annually at Bonneville Dam for five years under MMPA §120 to protect ESA-listed salmonids.
- NMFS applied a two-part test: first, whether pinnipeds collectively have a significant negative impact on listed salmonids; second, identify individual sea lions meeting criteria to be removed.
- Predation data showed sea lions at Bonneville Dam predating on salmonids; NMFS estimated up to 17,458 salmonids could be consumed annually, with specific listed salmonids affected.
- NMFS set a 1% predation target as the cap for removals, purportedly to balance pinniped protection with ESA-listed species recovery, though this was framed as an administrative limit, not a strict significance standard.
- Plaintiffs challenged NMFS’s action under APA and NEPA, arguing the agency failed to explain the basis for significance and failed to consider inconsistencies with prior NEPA assessments of fisheries and dam-related mortality.
- The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on NEPA and denied it on MMPA; the Ninth Circuit reviews de novo and remands/reverses as set forth in the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NMFS's MMPA significance finding was arbitrary and capricious. | Plaintiffs (Humane Society et al.) | NMFS | NMFS's rationale is insufficient; remand required |
| Whether NMFS adequately explained inconsistencies with earlier NEPA analyses. | Plaintiffs | NMFS/Defendants | Inadequate explanation; remand directed |
| Whether the 1% predation level is a lawful basis for significance under MMPA. | Plaintiffs | NMFS | Remand on explanation; Chevron issue left for later |
| Whether NEPA required an environmental impact statement for this action. | Plaintiffs | NMFS | NEPA claim affirmed; no EIS required on current record |
Key Cases Cited
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (reasoned decision requires rational connection between facts and choice)
- Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156 (U.S. 1962) (agency must articulate a satisfactory explanation of its action)
- Chenery Corp. v. SEC, 332 U.S. 194 (U.S. 1947) (cannot supply unsupported post hoc rationalizations)
- City of Sausalito v. O'Neill, 386 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2004) (APA review of agency actions under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A))
- Northwest Env'l Def. Ctr. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 477 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2007) (meaningful judicial review requires adequate explanation when data are inconsistent)