throbber

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT, and
`CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY,
`
`
`
`
`
`RYAN K. ZINKE, Secretary of Interior; DAVID
`BERNHARDT, Deputy Secretary of Interior; and
`UNITED STATES BUREAU OF LAND
`MANAGEMENT, an agency of the United States,
`
`
`
`
`
`STATE OF WYOMING; WESTERN ENERGY
`ALLIANCE,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`
`Defendants,
`
`and,
`
`Defendants-Intervenors.
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00187-REB Document 174 Filed 02/27/20 Page 1 of 62
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF IDAHO
`
`
`Case No.: 1:18-cv-00187-REB
`
`MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
`ORDER RE:
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
`PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`(PHASE ONE)
`(Dkt. 135)
`
`FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`(Dkt. 140)
`
`DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT
`(Dkt. 148)
`
`
`Pending before the Court are the following motions: (1) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial
`
`Summary Judgment (Phase One) (Dkt. 135); (2) Federal Defendants’ Motion for Partial
`
`Summary Judgment (Phase One) (Dkt. 140); and (3) Defendant-Intervenors’ Motion for Partial
`
`Summary Judgment (Dkt. 148). The Court has heard oral argument from counsel and has
`
`carefully considered the record. Being fully advised, the Court enters the following
`
`Memorandum Decision and Order.
`
`I. SUMMARY OF DECISION
`
`
`
`The Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) is a federal agency that, among other things,
`
`handles the leasing of oil and gas rights on certain federal lands. The procedures for doing so
`
`changed in 2018 with the implementation of a new Instruction Memorandum (“IM”), supplying
`
`MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00187-REB Document 174 Filed 02/27/20 Page 2 of 62
`
`changed instructions to the agency’s offices about how to handle such leases. This new direction
`
`is known as IM 2018-034.
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Western Watersheds Project and Center for Biological Diversity (collectively
`
`“WWP” or “Plaintiffs”) contend that IM 2018-034 unlawfully restricts public participation in
`
`and environmental review of BLM oil and gas lease decisions that affect and threaten sage-
`
`grouse populations and habitats across the western United States. WWP asks the Court to (1)
`
`vacate the challenged provisions of IM 2018-034 and reinstate the rules previously in effect
`
`under IM 2010-117 (issued during the prior presidential administration), until BLM changes
`
`these procedures through notice-and-comment rulemaking; and (2) vacate the leases and
`
`underlying decision documents for those lease sales utilizing IM 2018-034.
`
`
`
`Soon after the Complaint was filed, the State of Wyoming (“Wyoming”) and an oil and
`
`gas industry association known as Western Energy Alliance (“WEA”) (collectively “Defendant-
`
`Intervenors”), asked to intervene in the lawsuit, which the Court allowed.1
`
`
`
`Initially, the Court conducted a hearing to consider WWP’s request for a preliminary
`
`injunction. On September 21, 2018, under the legal standards that apply to preliminary
`
`injunctions and the requirements of federal law found in FLPMA, NEPA, and the APA, the
`
`Court concluded that WWP showed a substantial case for success on the merits of their claims
`
`and that irreparable harm was likely to result in the absence of a preliminary injunction. Further,
`
`
`1 Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint added the Normally Pressured Lance Natural Gas
`Development Project (“NPL Project”) to the “Final Actions” collectively challenged in the First,
`Second, and Third Claims for Relief; it also added a new Seventh Claim for Relief alleging that
`the NPL Project’s Environmental Impact Statement (“FEIS”) and Record of Decision (“ROD”)
`were deficient under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (“FLPMA”), the National
`Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). The
`proponent of the NPL Project, Jonah Energy LLC (“Jonah”), then moved to intervene, which the
`Court also allowed, but later severed WWP’s NPL Project-related claims and transferred them to
`the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming. See generally 7/9/19 MDO (Dkt.
`150).
`
`MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00187-REB Document 174 Filed 02/27/20 Page 3 of 62
`
`the Court concluded, after weighing the equities and the public interest, that such equities tipped
`
`in favor of, and the public interest was best served by, issuing a preliminary injunction.
`
`
`
`The preliminary injunction required that, for oil and gas leases scheduled for the fourth
`
`quarter of 2018 and thereafter, BLM must (1) re-implement certain provisions contained in IM
`
`2010-117 as to the nature of, and time periods for, public involvement and protest in the oil and
`
`gas leasing process; and (2) discontinue the use of conflicting procedures contained in IM 2018-
`
`034. In general, these interim requirements allowed a fuller opportunity for public involvement
`
`and comment in BLM’s decision-making processes affecting potential oil and gas leases on
`
`federal lands in areas of federally-recognized sage-grouse habitat – at least until the merits of
`
`WWP’s claims could be adjudicated and resolved.
`
`The preliminary injunction did not apply to BLM oil and gas lease procedures on lands
`
`that are not within federally-recognized boundaries encompassing sage-grouse habitat
`
`management areas; nor did it apply to oil and gas leases that had been the subject of sales already
`
`conducted up to that point in time or that were currently scheduled in the remainder of the third
`
`quarter of 2018. Federal Defendants did not appeal the Court’s preliminary injunction order, but
`
`instead postponed upcoming December 2018 lease sales in sage-grouse habitats to follow the
`
`procedures of IM 2010-117.
`
`
`
`Following the filing of the Administrative Record for IM 2018-034 and the pertinent
`
`lease sales, on October 15, 2019, the Court conducted a hearing to consider the parties’ cross-
`
`motions for summary judgment. Under the legal standards that apply to motions for summary
`
`judgment (alongside injunctions generally and, again, FLPMA, NEPA, and the APA), the Court
`
`is persuaded that the rationale behind issuing the preliminary injunction remains solid and, as
`
`such, enters partial summary judgment in WWP’s favor. In doing so, the Court finds that IM
`
`2018-034’s at-issue provisions are set aside and replaced by IM 2010-117’s corresponding
`
`MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00187-REB Document 174 Filed 02/27/20 Page 4 of 62
`
`provisions until BLM changes these procedures through notice-and-comment rulemaking. As
`
`with the preliminary injunction, however, this relief applies only to oil and gas lease sales
`
`contained in whole or in part within sage-grouse habitat management areas. Additionally, the
`
`June and September 2018 oil and gas lease sales in Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming that applied IM
`
`2018-034 are set aside.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`The Court has previously described the general contours of this case. See (Dkts. 54, 66,
`
`74, 111, 150).2 Broadly speaking, WWP challenges what it contends are unlawful actions by the
`
`Trump Administration, through Federal Defendants, to promote and expedite oil and gas leasing
`
`on public lands. WWP alleges that the manner and fact of such leasing “will adversely impact
`
`essential habitats and populations across the range of the greater sage-grouse . . ., and violate
`
`bedrock environmental laws including [FLPMA], [NEPA], and the [APA].” First Am. Compl.
`
`¶ 1 (Dkt. 78). More specifically, WWP alleges that Federal Defendants have issued a series of
`
`orders, scientific reports, and directives that cast aside and disregard previously-implemented
`
`protections for sage-grouse populations. At the same time, contends WWP, such actions also
`
`limit or preclude opportunities for public involvement during the oil and gas leasing process –
`
`materializing in five “final” lease sales that impact sage-grouse habitats (the June 2018 Nevada,
`
`September 2018 Nevada, June 2018 Wyoming, September 2018 Wyoming, and September 2018
`
`Utah lease sales, collectively identified as the “Phase One” lease sales). See id. at ¶¶ 1a, 225a-
`
`225ll; see also WWP’s Mem. ISO MPSJ, p. 3 (Dkt. 135-1).
`
`
`2 Accordingly, for reasons of efficiency and consistency, the Court will integrate those
`portions of its September 21, 2018 Memorandum Decision and Order and Preliminary Injunction
`where appropriate, particularly when understanding that it previously examined in depth WWP’s
`likelihood of success on the merits alongside similar (if not identical) arguments renewed here,
`with the Court now moving on to the actual merits of WWP’s claims in the context of the
`parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment.
`
`MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00187-REB Document 174 Filed 02/27/20 Page 5 of 62
`
`According to WWP, these leasing actions violate the 2015 Sage-Grouse Plan
`
`Amendments to BLM Resource Management Plans, FLPMA, NEPA, and the APA. See First
`
`Am. Compl., ¶¶ 276-307 (Dkt. 78). Further, WWP asserts, two recently-implemented BLM IMs
`
`revised previously existing BLM leasing processes without any public procedures (notice and
`
`comment) or environmental review: (1) IM 2018-026, which overrides the “prioritization”
`
`requirement of the 2015 Sage-Grouse Plan Amendments (prioritizing oil and gas leasing outside
`
`of identified sage-grouse habitat); and (2) IM 2018-034, which impacts environmental analyses
`
`of oil and gas leasing and development decisions, while limiting public notice and involvement
`
`in those decisions. See id. at ¶¶ 98-112. The pending motions pertain to IM 2018-034 under
`
`WWP’s Fourth and Fifth Claims for Relief.
`
`
`
`IM 2018-034, issued on January 31, 2018, claims this purpose:
`
`Purpose: This Instruction Memorandum (IM) sets out the policy of the Bureau of
`Land Management (BLM) to simplify and streamline the leasing process to
`alleviate unnecessary impediments and burdens, to expedite the offering of lands
`for lease, and to ensure quarterly oil and gas lease sales are consistently held in
`accordance with the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. § 226), Executive Order
`13783, and Secretary Order 3354.
`
`
`IM 2018-034, “Purpose” p. 1 (BLMW828). It “supersedes existing policy” contained in IM
`
`2010-117 and replaces “any conflicting guidance or directive found in the BLM Manual or
`
`Handbook.” Id.
`
`
`
`According to WWP, BLM issued IM 2018-034 without any public notice, comment, or
`
`environmental review, and directs BLM offices to discard procedures under the previous IM
`
`2010-117 for environmental reviews and limit public involvement in oil and gas leasing
`
`decisions. Such action, WWP contends, violates FLPMA, NEPA, and the APA. WWP requests
`
`that the Court vacate the challenged provisions of IM 2018-034 and the leases issued in reliance
`
`on IM 2018-034, while reinstating corresponding provisions from IM 2010-117 until BLM
`
`MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00187-REB Document 174 Filed 02/27/20 Page 6 of 62
`
`completes a proper notice-and-comment rulemaking to govern its lease review process – in
`
`particular:
`
` Vacate IM 2018-034, Section III.A – “Parcel Review Timeframes” and
`reinstate IM 2010-117, Section III.A – “Parcel Review Timeframes”;
`
` Vacate IM 2018-034, Section III.B.5 – “Public Participation” and reinstate IM
`2010-117, Section III.C.7 – “Public Participation”;
`
` 
`
` 
`
` Vacate IM 2018-034, Section III.D – “NEPA Compliance Documentation” and
`reinstate IM 2010-117, Section III.E – “NEPA Compliance Documentation”;
`and
`
` Vacate IM 2018-034, Section IV.B – “Lease Sale Parcel Protests” and reinstate
`IM 2010-117, Section III.H – “Lease Sale Parcel Protests.”
`
`
`See WWP’s Mem. ISO MPSJ, p. 19 (Dkt. 135-1).
`
`
`
`A comparison of the pertinent language from the two IMs (with supplied emphases)
`
`illustrates the differences in their respective templates for oil and gas leasing:
`
`
`Reinstate IM 2010-117
`
` §
`
` III.A. – Parcel Review Timeframes
`
`
`State offices will continue to hold sales four
`times per year, as required by the Mineral
`Leasing Act . . ., when eligible lands are
`determined by the state office to be
`available for leasing. However, state
`offices will develop a sales schedule with an
`emphasis on rotating lease parcel review
`responsibilities among field offices
`throughout the year to balance the
`workload and to allow each field office to
`devote sufficient time and resources to
`implementing the parcel review policy
`established in this IM. State offices will
`extend field office review timeframes, as
`necessary, to ensure there is adequate time
`for the field offices to conduct
`comprehensive parcel reviews.
`
`
`
`Vacate IM 2018-034
`
`
` §
`
` III.A – Parcel Review Timeframes
`
`
`State/field offices are required, by statute, and
`implementing regulation, to hold quarterly
`lease sales, when eligible lands are available
`for lease. Lease sales should occur in the last
`month of each calendar year quarter.
`
`The BLM accepts Expressions of Interest (EOI)
`in lands for potential leasing through the
`National Fluids Lease Sale System (NFLSS).
`Members of the public submit EOIs
`electronically to the BLM using NFLSS. Once
`submitted, the public can view all EOIs
`submitted to the BLM. The EOI submitter can
`track its EOI status using the EOI-specific
`tracking number provided by NFLSS. NFLSS
`can display the dates when the EOI was
`submitted to, and accepted by, the BLM, and its
`status, such as pending review by the state
`
`MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 6
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00187-REB Document 174 Filed 02/27/20 Page 7 of 62
`
`[No timeframe for parcel review]
`
` §
`
` III.C.7 – Public Participation
`
`
`State and field offices will provide for
`public participation as part of the review of
`parcels identified for potential leasing
`through the NEPA compliance
`documentation process (see section III.E).
`State and field offices will identify groups
`and individuals with an interest in local
`BLM oil and gas leasing, including surface
`owners of split estate lands where Federal
`minerals are being considered for leasing.
`Interested groups, individuals, and
`potentially affected split estate surface
`owners will be kept informed of field office
`
`office, field office, or surface management
`agency. The BLM also uses the NFLSS to
`describe lands that the BLM has identified for
`leasing consideration. NFLSS provides a link
`to upcoming lease sales. The BLM will identify
`in NFLSS a deadline for receiving EOIs for
`each upcoming sale. The deadline will be six
`months prior to the lease sale month. This EOI
`deadline also will be posted on the state office
`website along with the upcoming lease sale
`schedule.
`
`The timeframe for parcel review for a specific
`lease sale is to be no longer than 6 months.
`This will include adjudicating and creating the
`preliminary parcel list from all timely received
`EOIs and the other lands identified for leasing
`consideration in the NFLSS, recognizing there
`will be exceptions due to unforeseen
`circumstances, including delays associated with
`SMA consent.
`
`BLM will no longer use a rotating schedule
`for lease sales, as described in IM No. 2010-
`117. Each state office will review all lands that
`are identified in EOIs that were submitted
`before the EOI cutoff date for a particular
`quarterly lease sale and will offer all parcels
`determined to be eligible and available within
`the state office’s jurisdiction
`
`
` §
`
` III.B.5 – Public Participation
`
`
`State and field offices may provide for public
`participation during the NEPA process as part
`of the review of parcels identified for potential
`leasing
`
`MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 7
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00187-REB Document 174 Filed 02/27/20 Page 8 of 62
`
`leasing and NEPA activities through
`updated websites and email lists, and will
`be invited to comment during the NEPA
`compliance process.
`
`
` §
`
` III.E – NEPA Compliance Documentation
`
`
`The IDPR Team will complete site-specific
`NEPA compliance documentation for all
`BLM surface and split estate lease sale
`parcels. The IDPR Team may include the
`review of multiple parcels in a single
`document. Site-specific NEPA compliance
`documentation must incorporate
`appropriate information gained through the
`lease parcel review process described
`above. In accordance with this IM, the
`NEPA compliance documentation for oil
`and gas leasing must include an
`opportunity for public review, as described
`below, and the field office must verify that
`all legal requirements have been met (e.g.,
`ESA and NHPA).
`
`If, through the lease parcel IDPR Team
`review process, the authorizing official
`confirms that the proposed leasing action is
`adequately analyzed in an existing NEPA
`document, such as that prepared during the
`MLP process, and is in conformance with
`the approved RMP, a Determination of
`NEPA Adequacy (DNA) may be used to
`document NEPA compliance for the leasing
`decision . . . . Although not required by
`law or regulation, field offices will provide
`a 30-day public review and comment
`period for the DNA. After consideration of
`any public comments received on the
`document, the field office will either
`finalize the DNA or initiate other
`appropriate NEPA compliance review. It
`is expected that the DNA process will only
`be appropriate in cases where the existing
`NEPA documentation has adequately
`incorporated the most current program-
`specific guidance. If a DNA is not
`
` §
`
` III.D – NEPA Compliance Documentation
`
`
`The state/field office will determine the
`appropriate form of NEPA compliance
`documentation for all lease sale parcels on
`BLM-managed lands, including parcels for
`federal subsurface minerals in split estate
`lands.
`
`If, through the lease parcel review process, the
`authorized officer confirms that the proposed
`leasing action has been adequately analyzed in
`existing NEPA document(s) and is in
`conformance with the approved RMP, a
`Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA) will
`be used to document NEPA compliance for the
`leasing decision. If the authorized officer
`deems additional analysis to be necessary, then
`the BLM can prepare an Environmental
`Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact
`Statement (EIS), as appropriate.
`
`If the BLM concludes that a DNA will
`adequately document that existing NEPA
`analysis is sufficient to support the proposed
`action and the action is consistent with the
`RMP, no further public comment period is
`required for the DNA.
`
`The State Director or the officer with delegated
`decision-making authority will use the
`information provided by the field office
`authorized officer to determine which parcels to
`include on an upcoming lease sale.
`
`MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 8
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00187-REB Document 174 Filed 02/27/20 Page 9 of 62
`
`appropriate, then the field office will
`determine the appropriate NEPA
`compliance documentation (e.g.,
`environmental assessment (EA) or
`environmental impact statement (EIS)) to be
`prepared.
`
`Most parcels that the field office determines
`should be available for lease will require
`site-specific NEPA analysis. This analysis
`will typically take the form of an EA, which
`would be tiered, as appropriate, to the
`RMP/EIS or a MLP/EA or EIS, if one has
`been completed for any of the parcels.
`Scoping for these EAs is optional; however,
`the interdisciplinary review of lease sale
`parcels will provide input on the issues,
`impacts, and potential alternatives to be
`addressed in the EA. The EA will analyze a
`no action alternative (no leasing), a
`proposed leasing action (leasing the
`parcel(s) in conformance with the land use
`plan), and any alternatives to the proposed
`action that may address unresolved
`resource conflicts. In cases where the field
`office determines that the necessary terms
`and conditions under which leasing would
`be appropriate are not in conformance with
`the RMP, it will be necessary to amend the
`RMP before leasing is appropriate. If it is
`necessary to amend the RMP, the leasing
`EA (or EIS) must either meet the standards
`for NEPA documentation to support a plan
`amendment . . ., or the affected lease
`parcels must be withdrawn or deferred from
`leasing until a plan amendment or revision
`can be completed at a later date.
`
`Although not required by law or
`regulation, field offices will provide a 30-
`day public review and comment period for
`the EA and unsigned Finding of No
`Significant Impact (FONSI) of oil and gas
`leasing before forwarding the leasing
`recommendation to the State Director . . . .
`Note: Plan amendments are subject to
`additional public involvement and protest
`
`MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 9
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00187-REB Document 174 Filed 02/27/20 Page 10 of 62
`
`requirements . . . . The field office will
`finalize the EA and FONSI considering any
`public comment received on those
`documents. If a FONSI is not warranted,
`the field office may recommend that the
`parcel be withheld from leasing or that an
`EIS be prepared to address the site-specific
`issues in compliance with NEPA
`
`
` III.H – Lease Sale Parcel Protests
`
` §
`
` §
`
` IV.B – Lease Sale Parcel Protests
`
` A
`
` 10-day public protest period will begin the
`day the sale notice is posted, along with
`applicable NEPA documentation. State offices
`should attempt to resolve protests in a signed
`decision before the sale of the protested
`parcels. Parcels subject to protests that are not
`resolved (i.e., pending protests) will be offered
`for lease sale. A decision to deny or dismiss a
`protest will advise the protesting parties of their
`right to appeal to the Interior Board of Land
`Appeals (IBLA) and will state that an appeal
`will not automatically halt the auction process.
`
`The number of parcels protested and the status
`of the protests (i.e., protests dismissed, denied,
`upheld, or pending) must be publicly posted the
`day before the sale starts on the BLM state
`office website and the internet auction website
`so that bidders understand the protest status of
`each parcel. Protests upheld should be posted
`on the state office website and the NFLSS, using
`normal processes with amendments/notices to
`withdraw the parcel, no later than the day
`before the sale starts, and if applicable, on the
`online leasing website for the sale no later than
`the day before the sale starts.
`
`[Public notice of the sale is to be given 45 days
`prior to the sale § IV.A]
`
`
` A
`
` 30-day protest period will begin the day
`the sale notice is posted, as it has in the
`past. The earlier posting of the sale notice
`will provide the state and field offices with
`at least 60 days to review protests before
`the oil and gas lease sale. The process
`outlined in this IM – which includes site-
`specific parcel analysis and increased
`public participation – will help identify,
`address, and resolve most issues before the
`lease sale. When possible, state offices
`should attempt to resolve protests before the
`sale of the protested parcels. Protests that
`are not resolved do not prevent bidding on
`protested parcels at the auction. Protest
`decisions should advise the protesting
`parties of their right to appeal denied
`protests to the Interior Board of Land
`Appeals (IBLA), but that appeals will not
`automatically halt the auction or issuance
`of leases.
`
`[Public notice of the sale is to be given 90
`days prior to the sale § III.G]
`
`
`Compare IM 2018-034 (BLMW828-32), with IM 2010-117 (BLMW450-60) (emphasis added)
`
`(internal citations omitted); see also, e.g., First Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 105-112 (Dkt. 78).
`
`MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 10
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00187-REB Document 174 Filed 02/27/20 Page 11 of 62
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A.
`
`Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”)
`
`
`
`Federal agency compliance with NEPA and FLPMA is reviewed under the APA (neither
`
`NEPA nor FLPMA provides a private right of action). See Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S.
`
`Dep’t of Interior, 581 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th Cir. 2009); Earth Island Inst. v. U.S. Forest Serv.,
`
`351 F.3d 1291, 1300 (9th Cir. 2003). Under the APA, an agency action must be upheld unless it
`
`is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5
`
`U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).3 “A rule is arbitrary and capricious ‘if the agency has relied on factors
`
`which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of
`
`the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the
`
`agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of
`
`agency expertise.’” Providence Yakima Med. Ctr. v. Sebelius, 611 F.3d 1181, 1190 (9th Cir.
`
`2010) (quoting Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463
`
`U.S. 29, 43 (1983)).
`
`
`
`“[T]he touchstone of ‘arbitrary and capricious’ review under the APA is ‘reasoned
`
`decision-making.’” Altera Corp. & Subsidiaries v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 926 F.3d 1061,
`
`1080 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n, 463 U.S. at 52). Courts will sustain an
`
`agency action if the agency has “examine[d] the relevant data and articulate[d] a satisfactory
`
`explanation for its action including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice
`
`made.’” Id. (quoting Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n, 463 U.S. at 43 (internal quotation omitted)).
`
`This standard also applies to how an agency considers and responds to “significant comments”
`
`
`3 The APA goes on to highlight additional grounds for overturning agency actions,
`including, inter alia, agency actions “in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations,
`or short of statutory right” or “without observance of procedure required by law.” 5 U.S.C.
`§ 706(2)(C)-(D).
`
`MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 11
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00187-REB Document 174 Filed 02/27/20 Page 12 of 62
`
`that raise points that could change a proposed rule. Id. (quoting Am. Mining Congress v. EPA,
`
`965 F.2d 759, 771 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation omitted)).
`
`
`
`Summary judgment is appropriate where “the movant shows that there is no genuine
`
`dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.
`
`R. Civ. P. 56(a). However, in a case involving review of a final agency action under the APA,
`
`the court’s role is limited to reviewing the administrative record, and the standard set forth in
`
`Rule 56 does not apply. See Colorado River Cutthroat Trout v. Salazar, 898 F. Supp. 2d 191,
`
`200 (D.D.C. 2012) (citing Catholic Health Initiatives v. Sebelius, 658 F. Supp. 2d 113, 117
`
`(D.D.C. 2009), rev’d on other grounds, 617 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2010)). “Under the APA, it is
`
`the role of the agency to resolve factual issues to arrive at a decision that is supported by the
`
`administrative record, whereas ‘the function of the district court is to determine whether or not as
`
`a matter of law the evidence in the administrative record permitted the agency to make the
`
`decision it did.’” Id. (citation omitted); see also Occidental Eng’g Co. v. Immigration &
`
`Naturalization Serv., 753 F.2d 766, 769 (9th Cir. 1985). Summary judgment is thus a mechanism
`
`for deciding, as a matter of law, whether the agency action passes muster under the APA. See
`
`N.w. Motorcycle Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t Agric., 18 F.3d 1468, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1994); Occidental
`
`Eng’g, 753 F.2d at 769-70.
`
`
`
`In deciding whether an agency’s action was arbitrary and capricious, courts should be
`
`“highly deferential” to the agency’s decision, Providence Yakima, 611 F.3d at 1190, and not
`
`“substitute [the court’s own] judgment for that of the agency.” J & G Sales Ltd. v. Truscott, 473
`
`F.3d 1043, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007). “[C]ourts will ‘uphold a decision of less than ideal clarity if the
`
`agency’s path may reasonably be discerned.’” Id. at 1052 (quoting Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n,
`
`463 U.S. at 43). “Moreover, ‘[w]here the agency’s line-drawing does not appear irrational and
`
`the [party challenging the agency action] has not shown that the consequences of the line-
`
`MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 12
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00187-REB Document 174 Filed 02/27/20 Page 13 of 62
`
`drawing are in any respect dire . . . [courts] will leave that line-drawing to the agency’s
`
`discretion.’” Id. (quoting Leather Indus. of Am. v. EPA, 40 F.3d 392, 409 (D.C. Cir. 1994)).
`
`However, the agency cannot engage in post-hoc rationalizations; “[t]he grounds upon which an
`
`administrative order must be judged are those upon which the record discloses that its action was
`
`based.” Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 87 (1943). And when an agency
`
`changes position it must provide “good reasons” for the shift. See F.C.C. v. Fox Television
`
`Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009).
`
`
`
`Despite this forgiving standard, there is no room for a court to “rubber-stamp” an
`
`administrative decision. There must be “a substantive inquiry[,] . . . a thorough, probing, in-
`
`depth review” of the agency action. Native Ecosystems Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 418 F.3d
`
`953, 960 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402,
`
`415-16 (1971)). If, after such review, the court holds an agency action to be arbitrary and
`
`capricious, “the proper course [is] to remand to the [a]gency.” Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v.
`
`Defs. of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644, 657 (2007); see also Fed. Power Comm’n v. Idaho Power Co.,
`
`344 U.S. 17, 20, (1952) (when reviewing the administrative decision, “the function of the
`
`reviewing court ends when an error of law is laid bare.”); but see infra.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`Federal Land Policy and Management Act (“FLPMA”)
`
`In enacting FLPMA in 1976, “Congress declared that it is the policy of the United States
`
`to manage the public lands ‘in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic,
`
`historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological
`
`values.’” Ctr. for Biological Diversity, 581 F.3d at 1075 (quoting 43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(8)).
`
`FLPMA requires management of public lands based on “multiple use and sustained yield,”
`
`utilizing the resources “in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the
`
`American people . . . [taking] into account the long-term needs of future generations for
`
`MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 13
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00187-REB Document 174 Filed 02/27/20 Page 14 of 62
`
`renewable and nonrenewable resources, including, but not limited to, recreation, range, timber,
`
`minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, scientific and historical values[,]” and
`
`“achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular periodic output of
`
`the various renewable resources of the public lands consistent with multiple use.” 43 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1701(a)(7), 1702(c),(h). “‘Multiple use management’ is a deceptively simple term that
`
`describes the enormously complicated task of striking a balance among the many competing uses
`
`to which land can be put[.]” Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness All., 542 U.S. 55, 58 (2004).
`
`
`
`To help achieve these purposes, FLPMA requires that land use plans (known as
`
`Resource Management Plans (“RMPs”) for BLM lands) be developed with “public involvement”
`
`and then used in managing the public lands. See 43 U.S.C. § 1712(a) (“The Secretary shall, with
`
`public involvement and consistent with the terms and conditions of this Act, develop, maintain,
`
`and, when appropriate, revise land use plans which provide by tracts of areas for the use of the
`
`public lands.”). As to “public involvement,” FLPMA Section 309(e) further directs that:
`
`In exercising his authorities under this Act, the Secretary, by regulation, shall
`establish procedures, including public hearings where appropriate, to give . . . the
`public adequate notice and an opportunity to comment upon the formulation of
`standards and criteria for, and to participate in, the preparation and execution of
`plans and programs for, and the management of, public lands.
`
`
`43 U.S.C. § 1739(e); see also 43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(5) (FLPMA Section 102(a)(5): “[I]t is the
`
`policy of the United States that . . . the Secretary be required to establish comprehensive rules
`
`and regulations after considering the views of the general public . . . .”); 43 U.S.C. § 1712(f)
`
`(FLPMA Section 202(f): “The Secretary shall allow an opportunity for public involvement and

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket