Western Watersheds Project et al v. US Forest Service

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Counsel shall submit a proposed preliminary injunction to the Court for issuance. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT,

Case No. 1:12-cv-00286-BLW

Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

and
HELLS CANYON PRESERVATION
COUNCIL and THE WILDERNESS
SOCIETY,
Co-Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE,
Defendant.

INTRODUCTION
The Court has before it a motion for preliminary injunction filed by plaintiff
Western Watersheds Project. The Court heard oral argument on June 13, 2012 and
granted the motion from the bench. This decision will set forth the Court’s analysis in
more detail.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

BACKGROUND
A recently-passed appropriations rider has revived old concerns over the grazing
of domestic sheep in the Payette National Forest. Plaintiff originally brought suit in 2007
to prevent grazing in the area, eventually culminating in an Amended ROD for the
Payette Forest Plan. The ROD described a phased reduction in grazing from 2011 to
2013. However, Representative Mike Simpson sponsored a budget rider in 2012 that
prohibited the Forest Service from spending appropriated funds on “any new
management restrictions” on domestic sheep on National Forest land “in excess of the
management restrictions that existed on July 1, 2011.” Pub. L. No. 112-74, Div. E § 431
(emphasis added). Problems arose when the Forest Service interpreted the rider as
applying to the Amended ROD to Payette Forest Plan. The agency believed the rider
compelled it to authorize grazing on several allotments that were supposed to be closed in
2012 under the ROD, thus undoing what the prior litigation had achieved.
Alleging that the grazing authorization was inconsistent with the Payette Forest
Plan in violation of NFMA, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin grazing on the Grassy Mountain,
Hershey Lava, and Vance Creek allotments prior to July 10th, 2012. Defendant initially
contended that the Forest Service’s grazing authorization was not a final agency action
because AOIs for the 2012 grazing season had not yet been issued. Def.’s Resp. at 5-7,
Dkt. 9. However, AOIs were issued on June 7th. Therefore, the initial concerns over
justiciability are moot.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

ANALYSIS
1.

The Forest Service is not entitled to Chevron deference.
The Forest Service’s interpretation is not entitled to Chevron deference for a

number of reasons. First, and most importantly, Chevron deference only applies where
the language of a statute is ambiguous. Here, the language of the appropriations rider is
clear. The rider prohibits the Forest Service from creating additional grazing restrictions
beyond those that existed on July 1, 2011. The phased reduction of grazing described in
the ROD, including the closures of the three allotments in this case, existed more than a
year before that date. Indeed, it is precisely because the grazing restrictions here were in
existence on July1, 2011 that the appropriations rider was passed.
Moreover, Chevron deference does not apply to cases where an agency interprets a
statute that it does not administer and therefore falls outside its scope of expertise. See
Ass’n of Civilian Technicians v. Federal Labor Relations Auth., 200 F.3d 590, 592 (9th
Cir. 2000). The Forest Service administers its organic statute, NFMA, not budget bills.
Its expertise is confined to matters of federal land management. Reconciling the
appropriations rider with NFMA’s substantive obligations is therefore a purely legal
question warranting a less deferential standard.
Accordingly, the Forest Service’s interpretation of the rider is not entitled to
Chevron deference. Instead, as a purely legal question, it should simply be analyzed for
its reasonableness.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

2.

The Forest Service’s interpretation of the 2012 rider was not reasonable.
Under this less deferential standard, it is clear that the Forest Service’s

interpretation of the appropriations rider was unreasonable. First, the agency
interpretation is contrary to the plain language of the rider. As mentioned above, the
rider unambiguously does not apply to management restrictions that existed on July 1,
2011. Defendant, however, attempts to distort this meaning by equating “existed” with
“implemented.” Def’s Resp. at 4, Dkt. 9

Such a connotation is baseless, however. The

phrase “existed on” means simply that. Therefore, the planned closures of the three
allotments in question existed on July 1, 2011 because they were already contained in the
2010 ROD.
Second, the Forest Service’s interpretation of the rider is contrary to the intent of
Congress. What little legislative history exists makes no specific reference to the Payette
National Forest, but only to federal lands in general. See Conf. Rep. on H.R. 2055, 157
Cong. Rec. 193, at H9602, 112th Cong. 1st Sess. (Dec. 15, 2011) (stating that Section 431
“addresses the management of domestic sheep and bighorn sheep on Federal lands”).
Defendant relies solely on an isolated remark in a letter from Rep. Simpson about
“freezing current management.” Def’s Resp. at 9, Dkt. 9. Divorced from context, this
might support the Defendant’s theory that the rider was intended to “ameliorate the
effects of the 2010 ROD” by undoing its scheme of reduced grazing. Id. at 10. In reality,
however, the full context of the letter shows that Rep. Simpson intended the legislation to
be a stop-gap measure that would prevent grazing reductions on other National Forest

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4

land. See AR 1740 (stating that the rider’s language “simply prevents the grazing plan on
the Payette to be implemented elsewhere for one year.”). Simply cherry-picking phrases
like this is less than persuasive, especially when done to achieve their opposite meaning.
Thus, the record demonstrates that Congress intended to leave in place the planned
reduction in grazing in the Payette National Forest.
3.

The equities of the case favor the Plaintiff.
In its original motion for injunctive relief, Plaintiff extensively detailed the

likelihood of irreparable harm to bighorn sheep populations in the allotments in question.
Pl’s Br. at 19-27, Dkt 3-1. Plaintiff also outlined how the balance of hardships and the
public interest favor an injunction. Id. at 27-29. Defendant has put forth no claims
against these arguments. The Court is therefore satisfied that the remaining elements
necessary for the issuance of an injunction have been met. Winter v. Natural Res. Def.
Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).

ORDER
In accordance with the Memorandum Decision set forth above,
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s motion for
preliminary injunction (Dkt. 3) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that counsel shall submit a proposed preliminary
injunction to the Court for issuance.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5

Date: Jun 15, 2012

B. LYNN WINMILL
Chief District Judge
United States District Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 6