Western Watersheds Project v. Kraayenbrink
632 F.3d 472
9th Cir.2011Background
- BLM regulations governing grazing on over 160 million acres were amended in 2006 to modify public input, enforcement, and permittee ownership rights.
- Plaintiffs challenged NEPA, ESA, and FLPMA compliance, arguing the 2006 amendments were environmentally harmful and procedurally deficient.
- Public Lands Council and American Farm Bureau Federation intervened on behalf of the BLM; district court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs and enjoined the 2006 regulations.
- On appeal, the court addressed standing, ripeness, NEPA and ESA challenges, and remanded FLPMA for Chevron-based consideration.
- Court held that NEPA and ESA violations supported affirming the injunction, but vacated and remanded the FLPMA claim for further Chevron-based analysis.
- Final disposition: affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for FLPMA proceedings; costs awarded to plaintiffs on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of intervenors and plaintiffs | Intervenors have standing; plaintiffs have standing. | Intervenors may lack standing absent government; plaintiffs' standing contested. | Intervenors have associational standing; plaintiffs have Article III standing. |
| Ripeness of NEPA/ESA challenges | Regulatory changes are ripe due to final EIS and nationwide impact. | Regulations not yet applied; not ripe. | Claims are ripe; action ripe for review. |
| NEPA compliance – hard look and cumulative effects | BLM failed to take a hard look, ignored agency comments, and mischaracterized cumulative environmental effects. | BLM adequately considered environmental impacts; comments addressed. | BLM violated NEPA; final EIS failed to provide a proper hard look and neglected cumulative impacts. |
| Endangered Species Act consultation obligation | Given potential effects on listed species, BLM should have consulted with FWS. | No effect on listed species; no need for consultation. | BLM's no-effect finding and failure to consult were arbitrary and capricious; ESA violation. |
| FLPMA Chevron framework application | District court erred by not applying Chevron deference to FLPMA interpretation. | Chevron does not apply or analysis is premature; district court should decide. | District court remanded FLPMA claim for Chevron analysis; vacatur appropriate on this claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Public Lands Council v. Babbitt, 529 U.S. 728 (U.S. 2000) (Supreme Court on Taylor Grazing Act authority and public participation)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (establishes deference to agency interpretations of statutory mandates)
- Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 129 S. Ct. 1142 (S. Ct. 2009) (standing and associational standing considerations on appeal)
- Cal. ex rel. Lockyer v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 575 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2009) (ESA consultation threshold and may affect analysis)
- Lands Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2008) (NEPA, cumulative effects, and en banc considerations)