Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01185/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01185-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:4321 Review of Agency Action-Environment

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Wilderness Watch, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, et al., 

 

 Defendants. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-1185-PHX-MHM

 

ORDER

Wilderness Watch, the Arizona Wilderness Coalition, the Sierra Club, the Western

Watersheds Project and the Grand Canyon Wildlands Council (collectively “the Plaintiffs”)

filed the instant suit on June 15, 2007 against the United States Fish and Wildlife Service

(“the FWS” or “the Defendant”). (Dkt. #1). This Court granted motions to intervene by the

U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation (as well as various other groups, collectively referred

to here as “the Sportsmen”) and the State of Arizona. (Dkt. #102). 

According to the Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, the Defendant violated the National

Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4370, and the Wilderness Act, 16

U.S.C. §§ 1131-1136. (Dkt. #50). These allegations arise from the decision of the FWS to

authorize the construction of two water tanks within the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge near

Yuma, Arizona, in order to provide supplemental water for wildlife. 

The Plaintiffs allege that the construction of permanent structures and the use of

motorized vehicles within a designated wilderness area violated the Wilderness Act. The

Case 2:07-cv-01185-SRB Document 121 Filed 09/08/08 Page 1 of 20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Plaintiffs also assert that the FWS inappropriately invoked a “categorical exclusion” to

NEPA’s public notice and comment requirements. 

The Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on December 14, 2007. (Dkt. #78).

Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed by the Defendant, the State of Arizona, and

the Sportsmen. (Dkt. #85, 81 and 93). Having considered the motion and cross-motions for

summary judgment, oral argument, the administrative record in the case, the extra-record

evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs, as well as an amicus brief submitted by Public

Employees for Environmental Responsibility, the Court issues the following Order.

I. Background

The following facts are taken from the parties’ respective statements of facts and are

undisputed.

A. The History of Kofa and Bighorn Sheep

The Kofa Game Range was established in 1939. In November of 1990, certain lands

within the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge were designated as wilderness under the

Wilderness Act. The Kofa Wildlife Refuge consists of approximately 665,400 acres, of

which approximately 510,000 acres are designated “wilderness area.” The wilderness area

is comprised of rugged, desert terrain north of Yuma, Arizona. 

The Kofa Wilderness is home to a variety of wildlife, including desert bighorn sheep.

In fact, one of the reasons that the Kofa Wildlife Refuge was established was to protect

bighorn sheep. Desert bighorn sheep occupy high, rocky, arid areas like the habitat found

in the Kofa Wilderness.

In October 2006, the population of desert bighorn sheep on the Kofa had declined to

an estimated 390, down from an estimated 813 in October of 2000. Following the

recognition of the population decline, the Arizona Game and Fish Department, in conjunction

with the FWS, issued press releases identifying the declining population and recognizing

drought as a significant factor. The press releases also recognized other significant factors

leading to the decline, including predation. 

Case 2:07-cv-01185-SRB Document 121 Filed 09/08/08 Page 2 of 20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Although the FWS considered the tanks a redevelopment of two existing tanks, two

new tanks were built, and the “old tanks” were slated to “remain and not be modified.”

(Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Statement of Facts, Dkt. #78-2) (citing to Administrative Record

(“AR”) at p.136-37).

- 3 -

The FWS began to study the decline in the bighorn sheep population. An

Investigative Report and Recommendation was prepared, which addressed some of the

possible factors in the population decline. They include: 1) the population’s response to

drought; 2) water availability; 3) predation; 4) disease; 5) human disturbance; 6)

transportation; and 7) hunting. 

The Investigative Report specifically discussed water availability as a significant

factor affecting the population. It discussed the biology of bighorn sheep, noting that

summer temperatures, reduced moisture content of forage, and mating activities necessitated

additional water intake, and thus reliable water sources. One of the objectives listed in the

report was to ensure year round water availability to the bighorn sheep. The report also

noted that redevelopment of existing water sources could be completed using new techniques

to decrease the visual impact of the site. 

The Investigative Report also discussed predation as a factor in the decline of the

bighorn sheep population. The Report noted that research efforts should continue in order

to examine the effects of mountain lions preying on bighorn sheep, as the overall impact of

lion predation on the sheep population was unknown. Further, the Investigative Report

discussed hunting as a factor in the population decline.

B. Implementation of the Recommendations from the Investigative Report

Based on the Investigative Report and Recommendation, the FWS decided to redesign

water sources to capture and store rain more effectively. The FWS considered the project

a redevelopment1

 of two existing tanks, the “Yaqui” and “McPherson” tanks. 

The project was designed to provide year-round water through the use of a series of

PVC pipes, 24 inches in diameter and 120 to 160 feet long, buried in the ground. The tanks

hold approximately 13,000 gallons of water, with six-inch PVC pipes extending to water

Case 2:07-cv-01185-SRB Document 121 Filed 09/08/08 Page 3 of 20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

The purpose of NEPA is to ensure that federal agencies take into account the

environmental consequences of their actions. Neighbors of Cuddy Mtn. v. Alexander, 303

F.3d 1059, 1070 (9th Cir. 2002). A central component of NEPA is the requirement that

federal actions undergo public review in a notice and comment process. 40 C.F.R. §§

1500.2(d); 1506.6. Some projects undertaken by federal agencies, however, are so routine

and unlikely to cause significant environmental impacts that they may be conducted without

undergoing an environmental analysis. These projects are conducted under what is referred

to as a “categorical exclusion,” and they require no public review or notice and comment

period. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.4. 

- 4 -

diversion structures placed in small, nearby washes. The visible part of the structures consist

of the water diversions (approximately 12 inches high, constructed of concrete building

blocks covered with mortar) and the in-ground troughs. 

As part of the process to implement the recommendations outlined in the report, the

FWS prepared an Environmental Action Statement, which invoked a “categorical exclusion”

from NEPA’s reporting and public comment requirements.2

 The use of a categorical

exclusion for small water control structures is permitted by FWS policy. 

The water impoundments were constructed with use of backhoes, trucks and other

motorized vehicles that brought materials and water to the site. The FWS consulted its

policy manual regarding the use of motorized vehicles in the wilderness area; it ultimately

determined that such use was permissible because it was “necessary to accomplish refuge

objectives.” (Federal Defendants’ Separate Statement of Facts, Dkt. #90). The FWS also

considered a 1997 Interagency Management Agreement and Environmental Assessment that

recognized that “allowing the use of motorized or mechanized equipment and vehicles for

maintenance, improvement, reconstruction, relocation, or emergency water supplementation

at existing wildlife waters would temporarily impact wilderness visitors (loss of solitude) and

wildlife (stress) but would provide for maintaining species diversities for the long-term.”

(Id) (citing AR at p. 312). The FWS detailed its decision to use mechanized equipment in

the Minimum Requirements Analysis it prepared for the project. (See Minimum

Requirements Analysis and NEPA Worksheet, AR at p. 156-59). 

Case 2:07-cv-01185-SRB Document 121 Filed 09/08/08 Page 4 of 20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

The Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint alleges that the project violated NEPA because

it was improperly categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental

assessment or an environmental impact statement. (Dkt. #50). Further, the Plaintiffs argue

that the project was impermissibly revealed to hunting organizations whose members will

benefit from the project, but was not revealed to the organizations that favor wildlife and

wilderness protection. (Id.) The Plaintiffs also argue that the project violates the Wilderness

Act because it impermissibly impairs wilderness character. (Id.)

II. Standard of Review

The Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) prescribes the standard of review for

challenges to agency actions under statutes that otherwise provide no private right of action.

Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 377 n.23 (1989). The agency

action must be upheld unless it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not

otherwise in accordance with the law. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); Natural Resources Defense

Council v. U.S. EPA, 526 F.3d 591, 602 (9th Cir. 2008). The reviewing court defers to the

agency if the decision is based on a permissible construction of the statute or regulations it

is entrusted to administer. Chevron USA, Inc. v. NRDC, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843 (1984). 

In deciding an APA case, the scope of review is generally limited to the

Administrative Record that was before the agency decision-maker. Florida Power & Light

v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 743 (1985). In such a case, motions for summary judgment are the

“appropriate mechanism for deciding the legal question of whether the agency could

reasonably have found the facts as it did.” Occidental Engineering Co. v. I.N.S., 753 F.2d

766, 770 (9th Cir. 1985). The function of the reviewing court is not to resolve any disputed

issues of fact; rather the 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. at 769.

III. Discussion

Case 2:07-cv-01185-SRB Document 121 Filed 09/08/08 Page 5 of 20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

The Court finds persuasive the language cited by the Plaintiffs from the West

decision: “if the fact that the [contested projects were] built and operating were enough to

make the case nonjusticiable . . . then the [defendant] and all similar entities could merely

ignore the requirements of NEPA, build its structures before a case gets to court, and then

hide behind the mootness doctrine.” (Reply and Response to Cross-motions for Summary

Judgment, Dkt. # 98) (internal quotations and citations omitted). 

- 6 -

A. Mootness

Preliminarily, the Court must address the Defendant’s argument that the case is moot.

The FWS asserts that the Plaintiffs’ action has lost its character as a present, live controversy

because the completion of the water tanks prevents the Court from granting effective relief.

(Cross-motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. #85). The FWS asserts that where the

challenged action has been completed, as here, Courts have consistently found that no

effective relief may be granted and the case is moot. (Id.) 

The Plaintiffs, however, direct the Court’s attention to a Ninth Circuit case that finds

that environmental cases “do not become moot merely because the project has been

completed; rather, the inquiry is whether relief can be granted.” (Reply and Response to

Cross-motions for Summary Judgment, Dkt. # 98) (citing West v. Sec’y of the Dept. Of

Trans., 206 F.3d 920, 924-26 (9th Cir. 2000)). The Plaintiffs point out that they are seeking

disablement or removal of the water impoundments by non-motorized means, or an order for

the FWS to prepare an environmental assessment.3

 Because the Court finds that either or

both of these remedies could provide effective relief, the case is not moot. 

B. Motion to Strike Extra Record Evidence

The FWS has moved to strike some extra-record evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs

as an exhibit to the Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. #92). The evidence to which the

FWS objects includes:

1) The declaration of Tim Lengerich to establish the Plaintiffs’ standing; 

2) The declaration of Tina Marie Ekker to support the Plaintiffs’ argument that public

comment was not solicited for the project; 

Case 2:07-cv-01185-SRB Document 121 Filed 09/08/08 Page 6 of 20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 7 -

3) Excerpts from a publication called Counting Sheep to explain bighorn sheep history

and biology; and 

4) The Arizona Hunting Guidelines. 

(Id.) The FWS argues that the Court’s review is confined to the Administrative Record, and

therefore, consideration of the extra-record evidence is inappropriate. (Id.)

The Plaintiffs respond that several exceptions exist to the general rule limiting extrarecord evidence, and that these exceptions apply to each of the challenged items of evidence.

(Dkt. #96). 

1. Declaration of Tim Lengerich

The FWS concedes in its Reply that it does not object to the use of Lengerich’s

deposition for the purposes of attempting to establish standing. (Dkt. #97). Therefore, the

Lengerich deposition is admitted for that purpose. 

2. Declaration of Tina Marie Ekker

The Plaintiffs submitted the Ekker declaration for support of their claim that the FWS

did not solicit public comment for the water impoundment project. The FWS objects on

several grounds to the Court’s consideration of this evidence, but admits to the Plaintiffs’

underlying claim — i.e., that the FWS did not seek public comment for the project. The

Court treats the Plaintiffs’ contention as established, and therefore consideration of the

declaration is unnecessary. 

3. Excerpts from Counting Sheep

The Plaintiffs argue that extra-record materials, such as the excerpts from the

publication Counting Sheep, are admissible to help the reviewing court determine “whether

the agency considered all relevant factors and has explained its decision.” (Dkt. #96) (citing

Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019, 1030 (9th Cir. 2005). The Plaintiffs argue further

that if the materials are needed to “explain technical terms or complex subject matter,” they

are admissible in the district court. (Id.)

The Court does not consider the subject matter technical or complex, but will admit

the materials for the purpose of considering whether the FWS failed to consider important

Case 2:07-cv-01185-SRB Document 121 Filed 09/08/08 Page 7 of 20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 4

See part III, section B.2 supra. 

- 8 -

factors of bighorn sheep history and biology. Although the FWS argues that it in fact

considered many factors of bighorn sheep history and biology, that argument is better left

reserved for the merits of the summary judgment motions, and not for support of its motion

to strike. The Court can better determine whether the FWS failed to consider an important

aspect of the problem by reference to the issues it allegedly overlooked.

4. Arizona Hunting Guidelines

The Plaintiffs seek to admit the Arizona Hunting Guidelines to support their

contention that hunting is permissible at man-made water holes, such as the water

impoundments at issue in this case. (Dkt. #96). They argue that this concept is a “technical

matter that would likely not be grasped by a non-hunting person.” (Id.) Alternatively, the

Plaintiffs urge the Court to take judicial notice of the hunting guidelines. 

As with the declaration of Tina Marie Ekker,4

 however, the FWS admits to the

Plaintiffs’ underlying contentions. (Dkt. #97). The Court therefore treats the Plaintiffs’

claims about hunting at water holes as established, and thus resort to the Arizona Hunting

Guidelines is unnecessary. 

C. Motion to File Amicus Curiae Brief

An entity called Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility moved to file an

amicus curiae brief in support of the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. #108).

The Court notes that the FWS and the Interveners object on several grounds, arguing that the

brief is an extra-record submission with no legal arguments, no citation to legal authority,

and makes no reference to documents in the administrative record. The Sportsmen’s

objection refers to it as “little more than an unsworn extra record declaration.” (Dkt. #111).

They also argue that it is inexcusably tardy. (Id.) 

Although the Court grants the motion to file the amicus brief for the reasons discussed

above with respect to the excerpts from Counting Sheep, it does so with full cognizance of

the brief’s potential shortcomings and the Defendant’s and Interveners’ objections. 

Case 2:07-cv-01185-SRB Document 121 Filed 09/08/08 Page 8 of 20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 9 -

D. The Use of Motorized Equipment and Construction of Permanent Structures Within the

Wilderness Area

The Plaintiffs argue that both the use of motorized equipment and the construction of

permanent structures within a wilderness area violate the plain language of the Wilderness

Act. The Wilderness Act provides:

 . . .except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the

administration of the area for the purpose of this chapter

(including measures required in emergencies involving the

health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no

temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment

or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of

mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any

such area.

16 U.S.C. § 1133(c). According to the Plaintiffs, any exceptions regarding motorized

equipment or permanent structures are read narrowly, and so the impoundments should be

removed or rendered inoperable. (Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. #78). 

The FWS responds that Congress could have imposed a flat prohibition on motorized

vehicles and structures or installations in the wilderness. (Cross-motion for Summary

Judgment, Dkt. #85). Instead, Congress “gave agencies the ability to maintain structures

when necessary to meet the minimum requirements for the administration of efforts to

conserve wildlife resources of the lands.” (Id.) 

Further, the FWS argues that it has additional — and sometimes conflicting — duties

by virtue of the fact that the lands in question are also designated as a Wildlife Refuge under

the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (“NWRSIA”). The FWS asserts that

those duties required the FWS to take the affirmative actions here (including the use of

motorized equipment and permanent water impoundments) in order to preserve and restore

the bighorn sheep population. The Court requested, and the parties provided, supplemental

briefing on the issue of whether the Wilderness Act or the NWRSIA was controlling. (See

Dkt. #116, 117, 118 and 119). 

Case 2:07-cv-01185-SRB Document 121 Filed 09/08/08 Page 9 of 20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 10 -

1. Wilderness Act and the NWRSIA

 a. The Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Brief

The Plaintiffs argue that the NWRSIA is a general statute that does not act to

eliminate the specific protections afforded to wilderness lands by the Wilderness Act. The

Plaintiffs argue that the NWRSIA explicitly declares that it only applies “subject to existing

state and federal law,” and that the Wilderness Act is not similarly limited. (Dkt. #117).

Wilderness, the Plaintiffs argue, is to be preserved in all cases as wilderness.

The Plaintiffs state that a specific statute cannot be controlled or nullified by a general

statute, regardless of the order in which the two statutes were enacted. Here, the Wilderness

Act specifically designates wilderness land to be free of permanent improvements. The

NWRSIA, in contrast, talks about the general need to conserve fish and wildlife without

specific instructions on how to accomplish that conservation. Therefore, the Plaintiffs assert,

the more specific prohibitions in the Wilderness Act control.

The Plaintiffs also point out that the FWS is not permitted to violate federal law and

must therefore strive to meet the requirements of both the NWRSIA and the Wilderness Act.

Because nothing in the NWRSIA specifically requires the FWA to build new water

developments in contravention on the Wilderness Act’s prohibition, the FWS could have

built the water impoundments, if they were required, on parts of the refuge that were not

designated as wilderness. 

Finally, the Plaintiffs assert that the Ninth Circuit has not held that the NWRSIA is

controlling over the Wilderness Act where faced with similar issues. For support, the

Plaintiffs cite to Wilderness Society v. Alaska Ctr. For the Environment, 360 F.3d 1374 (9th

Cir. 2004) (en banc), and Wilderness Watch v. Mainella, 375 F.3d 1085 (11th Cir. 2004). 

 b. The FWS’s Supplemental Brief

The FWS asserts in its supplemental brief that there is no irreconcilable conflict 

between the two statutes, and therefore neither is controlling. The two must be read together

to fulfill the mission of the refuge. The FWS points to the exception in the Wilderness Act

that allows otherwise prohibited actions “where necessary to carry out the purposes of the

Case 2:07-cv-01185-SRB Document 121 Filed 09/08/08 Page 10 of 20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 11 -

Act.” (Dkt. #116). This language, according to the FWS, supports the agency’s

interpretation that the two statutes can be harmonized.

Furthermore, the FWS argues that Congress noted that the designation of the lands as

wilderness was compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established and

managed. The management of bighorn sheep was one of the primary purposes of

establishing the refuge, and the Wilderness Act was not intended to change that. 

The FWS points out that it has a policy that specifically addresses the effect of the

Wilderness Act on the refuge purposes. The policy states that Wilderness Act purposes are

to be “within and supplemental” to the purposes of the NWRSIA. The FWS interprets this

to mean that the wilderness purposes are additional purposes of the refuge, providing

additional considerations for determining the administrative and management actions needed

to achieve the refuge’s purposes on designated wilderness areas.

Finally, the FWS argues that courts must regard each statute as effective if they are

capable of coexistence. If one of the statutes is ambiguous with respect to an issue, the courts

must defer to the agency so long as it involves a permissible construction of the statute. The

FWS asserts that it has implemented policies that enable it to give effect to both statutes;

therefore they do not conflict and neither is controlling.

 c. The State of Arizona’s Supplemental Brief

The State of Arizona argues that neither statute must give way to the other; both

impose mandatory — yet compatible — obligations on the FWS. Because the Wilderness

Act’s purposes are “within and supplemental” to the purpose of restoring wildlife

populations, the actions taken were equally consistent with the Wilderness Act. The

exception in the statute that allows non-conforming actions when necessary for refuge

purposes is therefore equally applicable to the Wilderness Act. Because the actions involved

the least impact necessary to accomplish the refuge purpose, the State asserts, they were

permissible under the Wilderness Act.

The preference “is to harmonize statutes wherever possible.” (Dkt. #119). The

FWS’s reasonable harmonization here is entitled to deference. Even if the Court did not

Case 2:07-cv-01185-SRB Document 121 Filed 09/08/08 Page 11 of 20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 12 -

agree that the FWS reasonably harmonized the two statutes, the State argues, the NWRSIA

should control as the later-enacted statute.

 d. The Sportsmen’s Supplemental Brief

The Sportsmen assert that the NWRSIA overrides any seemingly contradictory

principles of the Wilderness Act. In any event, both statutes require the FWS to preserve

species, so the Sportsmen argue that there is no actual conflict. Further, the FWS complied

with all of the Wilderness Act’s requirements. 

The bighorn sheep were the primary concern in refuge establishment, the Sportsmen

argue. Because the Wilderness Act is “supplemental to” the refuge designations, the

Wilderness Act was plainly intended to allow the FWS to engage in refuge-related

management activities. If contradictory, the Sportsmen assert, the Wilderness Act takes a

backseat to the NWRSIA.

Finally, the Sportsmen argue that Congress has described the Wilderness Act as

“simply an overlay,” prescribing terms and conditions for how land managers achieve the

refuge’s existing purposes. (Dkt. #118). They assert that constructing the water tanks was

consistent with Congress’ directives and in accordance with all statutory provisions, and that

this reasonable harmonization is therefore entitled to deference.

2. Analysis

The Court finds that the two statutes at issue are capable of coexistence, and that it

must regard each as effective. Nigg v. U.S. Postal Service, 501 F.3d 1071, 1076 (9th Cir.

2007). Further, the Court finds that the FWS engaged in a reasonable harmonization of its

obligations under each statute. Alaska v. Watt, 451 U.S. 259, 267 (1981). 

The purposes of the Wilderness Act are deemed to be “within and supplemental to the

purposes for which . . . national wildlife refuge systems are established and administered.”

16 U.S.C. § 1133(a). The FWS interprets this “within and supplemental” language to mean

that “wilderness purposes become additional purposes of the refuge, yet apply only to those

areas of the refuge designated as wilderness.” (Cross-motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt.

#13). These wilderness purposes “provide additional considerations for determining the

Case 2:07-cv-01185-SRB Document 121 Filed 09/08/08 Page 12 of 20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 13 -

administrative and management actions” needed to achieve the refuge’s purposes on

wilderness lands. (Id.) 

This reasonable harmonization by the FWS is entitled to deference because Congress

has not expressed its intent on the issue of what to do when a potential conflict may arise

between the two statutes. National Ass’n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, __

U.S. __ , 127 S. Ct. 2518, 2534 (2007) (citing Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. N.R.D.C., Inc., 467

U.S. 837, 843 (1984)). If a statute is “silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue,

the question for the court is whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible

construction of the statute.” Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842-43. The Court finds here that it is. 

 a. Permanent Structures

The FWS argues that the permanent water impoundments were “necessary to meet

minimum requirements for the administration of the area.” 16 U.S.C. § 1133(c). The

Plaintiffs assert that not only were the water impoundments not necessary, the FWS failed

to consider the detrimental effect the supplemental water might have on the natural balance

of the ecosystem. (Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt.#78). 

The Plaintiffs argue that construction of the water impoundments modifies the area’s

natural conditions “so that water is provided year-round where it otherwise would be scarce,

intermittent, or not exist at all. As a consequence, animals that otherwise would not inhabit

the area because of the scarcity of water in the area’s natural conditions, can now do so.”

(Id.) For support, the Plaintiffs cite to the disputed extra-record excerpts that discuss the

history and biology of bighorn sheep. (Exhibits 2 and 3 to Motion for Summary Judgment,

Dkt. #80).

The excerpts provide support for the Plaintiffs’ assertion that bighorn sheep can live

in places with little water and searing heat. (Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. #78, 80).

The excerpts also discuss the significant threat that bighorn sheep face from predatory

animals including mountain lions. (Id.) These factors lend support to the Plaintiffs’ concern

that the abundance of man-made waters in the Kofa Refuge might permit mountain lions to

Case 2:07-cv-01185-SRB Document 121 Filed 09/08/08 Page 13 of 20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 14 -

survive in bighorn sheep territory that would otherwise be too arid for them to endure.

(Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. #78). 

One of the excerpts, however, specifically discusses the beneficial role played by

“single species advocate groups.” (Exhibit 3 to Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. #80).

It suggests that advocate groups for bighorn sheep, such as the Interveners here, have been

particularly successful in their efforts, and have contributed funds and labor to sheep

transplants and water improvement projects. (Id.) The article goes on to say that the results

of these advocate groups are undoubtedly beneficial to sheep, and that these groups are

essentially deserving of encouragement. (Id.) Further, the excerpt seems to highlight the

importance of “escape terrain” as a key factor in the bighorn’s ability to avoid predation.

(Id.) 

The FWS points out that it considered both bighorn sheep biology and predation when

determining whether the water impoundments were necessary. (Reply in Support of Motion

to Strike Extra Record Evidence, Dkt. #97). The Minimum Tool Analysis prepared for the

project noted that the bighorn sheep populations had declined to an estimated 390 sheep,

down from an estimated 813 in 2000. (AR at p. 154). A joint news release by the Arizona

Game and Fish Department and the FWS discussed, among other causes, drought, predation

and hunting as factors for the decline. (AR at p. 116-119). 

Further, the Arizona Game and Fish Department prepared an “Investigative Report

and Recommendations for the Kofa Bighorn Sheep Herd,” which was approved by the FWS

(AR at p. 392-430). The Investigative Report provides a detailed analysis of sheep mortality

factors and management strategies, including habitat considerations (population response to

drought and water availability), biological considerations (predation, disease, human

disturbance, translocations and hunting), and other considerations (livestock and burros,

noxious and invasive plants, wildfires and mining). (Id.) Ensuring year-round water

availability for bighorn sheep was one of the priority recommendations of the Investigative

Report after consideration of the habitat and biological factors. (AR at p. 10). 

Case 2:07-cv-01185-SRB Document 121 Filed 09/08/08 Page 14 of 20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 15 -

The FWS appears to have considered a multitude of relevant factors in sheep mortality

and management. Having considered all of the critical factors, the FWS’s decision to

construct the water impoundments — despite being contrary to the course of action (or

inaction) that the Plaintiffs might have taken — is entitled to deference. “Agency action

passes muster under [the arbitrary, capricious, or abuse of discretion] standard of review

provided that the agency examine[s] the relevant data and articulate[s] a satisfactory

explanation for its action, including a rational connection between the facts found and the

choice made.” Hopi Tribe v. Navajo Tribe, 46 F.3d 908, 914 (9th Cir. 1995) (internal

quotations and citations omitted). 

Accordingly, the Court finds that the construction of the water impoundments did not

violate the Wilderness Act.

 b. Motorized Equipment

The Plaintiffs argue that the use of motorized equipment violates the plain language

of the Wilderness Act. The FWS argues, however, that as with the permanent water

impoundments, the use of motorized equipment was “necessary to meet minimum

requirements for the administration of the area.” 16 U.S.C. § 1133(c). 

The FWS points out that it relied on its Refuge Manual in determining whether the

use of motorized equipment was permissible. (See AR at p. 329). The Refuge Manual

provides that motorized equipment “may be used in special circumstances if it is the

minimum tool necessary to accomplish a task safely and without long term impairment of the

area’s wilderness character.” (Id.) 

The Minimum Requirements Analysis thoroughly discussed the use of motorized

equipment, as well as alternatives to the use of motorized equipment (including taking no

action, or completing the project through non-mechanized means). (AR at p. 154-59). The

FWS ultimately concluded that the use of motorized equipment constituted the minimum tool

necessary to safely accomplish the project. The FWS determined that it could complete the

project relatively quickly (within a few days as opposed to weeks without mechanized

Case 2:07-cv-01185-SRB Document 121 Filed 09/08/08 Page 15 of 20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

The parties acknowledge that some of the intervener groups volunteered time and

materials to the water impoundment project. The Plaintiffs suggest that this demonstrates

that the Interveners were impermissibly apprised of the action before it was completed and

that, presumably, their input was considered. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs argue that the

project was intentionally “conducted with notice to favored parties but in secrecy with

respect to those who may oppose the project.” (Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. #78).

It was revealed in oral argument, however, that the Interveners have regular and ongoing

contact with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Court does not find that these facts

- 16 -

equipment), and could provide reliable water to wildlife during the summer of 2007 while

minimizing disturbance during construction. (AR at p. 156). 

The FWS also noted a concern about human health and safety if the projects were

completed using non-mechanized means. The FWS cited to heat-related problems, back, leg

and ankle injuries and blisters. (AR at p. 158). Further, the FWS indicated that the extended

time needed to complete the projects by hand “would likely result in poor worker retention

and recruitment, placing additional work on those individuals willing to stay and complete

the projects.” (Id.) 

Accordingly, the FWS determined that the use of motorized equipment constituted the

minimum tool necessary to accomplish the task safely and without long term impairment of

the area’s wilderness character. The Court finds that the agency’s interpretation of its

regulations are entitled to controlling weight. Alaska Center for the Environment v. U.S.

Forest Service, 189 F.3d 851, 857 (9th Cir. 1999). The decision to use motorized equipment

was based on a permissible construction of the Wilderness Act and the NWRSIA, and is

therefore entitled to deference. Chevron USA, Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837, 843 (1984). 

E. The Decision to Construct Water Impoundments Without Public Review or Comment and

the Use of a Categorical Exclusion 

The Plaintiffs argue that the FWS violated NEPA by deciding to construct the water

impoundments without public review or comment and through the use of a categorical

exclusion. Because no public review or comment is required if the agency appropriately

relied on a categorical exclusion, the Court need only address whether the categorical

exclusion was appropriately invoked.5

 

Case 2:07-cv-01185-SRB Document 121 Filed 09/08/08 Page 16 of 20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

point to an unfairness in the public comment process, or that this contact amounted to an

impermissible consideration of the input of only those who favored the project. Accordingly,

the Court must only consider whether the use of a categorical exclusion was appropriate. 

- 17 -

The Plaintiffs point out that NEPA “requires the federal government to prepare an

environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement for all federal actions that

‘may’ have a significant impact on the environment.” (Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt.

#78) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)). A project may be categorically excluded from this

requirement if it is one of a category of actions that the agency has consistently “found to

have no significant cumulative or individual effects on the environment.” (Id.) (citing 40

C.F.R. § 1508.4). Further, the project must not implicate any “extraordinary circumstances.”

(Id.) 

The extraordinary circumstances that will prevent an action from being categorically

excluded from the environmental assessment or environmental impact statement requirement

include actions that may 1) have adverse effects on natural resources such as wilderness

areas, 2) have highly uncertain environmental effects or may set precedent for future actions

with potentially significant effects, or 3) have the potential to violate federal law. (Motion

for Summary Judgment, Dkt. #78) (citing the FWS’s Department Manual Appendix 2, Ch.

2, at AR 249). 

The Plaintiffs assert that the use of motorized equipment to construct these permanent

water impoundments implicated each of these extraordinary circumstances, and thus was

ineligible for a categorical exclusion. 

1. Adverse effects on natural resources such as wilderness areas

The Plaintiffs assert that the adverse effect on the wilderness area is caused by

“disturbing the natural water regime and disrupting and modifying the ecology of the

wilderness to favor some animals and components of the wilderness over others.” (Motion

for Summary Judgment, Dkt. #78). 

The FWS responds that the Department of the Interior has promulgated specific

categorical exclusions for the FWS that were subject to public notice and comment. The

Case 2:07-cv-01185-SRB Document 121 Filed 09/08/08 Page 17 of 20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 18 -

categorical exclusions include “the construction of new, or the addition of, small structures

or improvements,” including “the construction of small water control structures.” (Crossmotion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. #85) (citing the FWS’s Department Manual, 516 DM

ch. 8, sec. 8.5 at AR 257-61). Further, there is a categorical exclusion for “the reintroduction

or supplementation (i.e., stocking) of native, formerly native, or established species into

suitable habitat within their historic or established range, where no or negligible

environmental disturbances are anticipated.” (Id.) The FWS asserts that it relied on these

categorical exclusions, and that their use is entitled to deference as not arbitrary, capricious,

or an abuse of discretion. 

The Court finds that the agency’s interpretation of its regulations as allowing the

water impoundment project to proceed under a categorical exclusion is entitled to controlling

weight. Alaska Center for the Environment v. U.S. Forest Service, 189 F.3d 851, 857 (9th

Cir. 1999) (“An agency’s interpretation of the meaning of its own categorical exclusion

should be given controlling weight unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the terms

used in the regulation.”). 

The FWS appears to have thoroughly investigated the project and its effects, and

concluded that a categorical exclusion was appropriate. It prepared an Environmental Action

Statement, Minimum Requirements Analysis, and NEPA worksheets to document its

conclusion. “Once the agency considers the proper factors and makes the factual

determination on whether the impacts are significant or not, that decision implicates

substantial agency expertise and is entitled to deference.” Id. at 859 (citation omitted). 

2. Highly uncertain environmental effects or precedent-setting for future actions with

potentially significant effects 

The Plaintiffs argue the decision to construct the water impoundments “comes with

a decision to maintain them, probably for decades, with water trucks, hoses, and earthmoving equipment” within the wilderness area. (Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. #78).

Although the FWS does not dispute that the tanks may require some maintenance, it

points out that the redesign of the water tanks was intended to “capture and store rainwater

Case 2:07-cv-01185-SRB Document 121 Filed 09/08/08 Page 18 of 20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 19 -

more efficiently, greatly reducing the need to haul supplemental water.” (Cross-motion for

Summary Judgment, Dkt. #85); (Reply to Cross-motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. #106).

The FWS reported in oral argument that the previous design of the water tanks required

additional disturbance to the wilderness area though the hauling of supplemental water to

tanks that had become dry. The increased efficiency of both capture and storage of run-off

was intended to reduce the impact to the environment of water hauling. The Court finds that

this determination is entitled to deference. Alaska Center for the Environment v. U.S. Forest

Service, 189 F.3d 851, 857 (9th Cir. 1999). 

3) Potential to violate federal law 

The Plaintiffs argue that the water impoundment project has an undeniable potential

to violate the Wilderness Act because the express language of that Act forbids motorized

equipment and permanent structures. 

The Court notes that the language of the Wilderness Act prohibiting motorized

equipment and permanent structures is subject to exception where “necessary to meet

minimum requirements for the administration of the area.” 16 U.S.C. § 1133(c). Further,

as discussed in part III, section D.2 supra, the Court finds that the FWS engaged in a

reasonable harmonization of the two statutes controlling its actions on the land in question.

Accordingly, the agency’s conclusion that there were no extraordinary circumstances present

that would require it to prepare an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact

Statement is entitled to deference. Alaska Center, 189 F.3d at 859. 

IV. Conclusion

The Court finds that the decision to construct two permanent water impoundments

using motorized equipment in an area designated as wilderness did not violate the Wilderness

Act. The Court also finds that the agency’s actions did not require the FWS to provide public

notice and comment, as they were undertaken pursuant to an appropriate categorical

exclusion. 

Accordingly,

Case 2:07-cv-01185-SRB Document 121 Filed 09/08/08 Page 19 of 20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 20 -

IT IS ORDERED denying the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. #78).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting the Defendant’s and Interveners’ Crossmotions for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. #85, 81, and 93). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting in part and denying in part the Defendant’s

Motion to Strike the Plaintiffs’ Extra-Record Evidence. (Dkt. #92). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting the Motion to File Amicus Curiae Brief by

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. (Dkt. #108). 

DATED this 5th day of September, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01185-SRB Document 121 Filed 09/08/08 Page 20 of 20