Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06040/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06040-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 899
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
Cause of Action: 16:1538 Endangered Species Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY,

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

INFORMATION CENTER, KLAMATHSISKIYOU WILDLANDS CENTER, and

SIERRA FOREST LEGACY,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE; RYAN

K. ZINKE, in his capacity as Secretary of the

Interior; and GREG SHEEHAN, in his

capacity as Principal Deputy Director of the

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service,

Defendants. /

No. C 16-06040 WHA

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

MOTION TO ALTER OR

AMEND JUDGMENT AND

VACATING HEARING

INTRODUCTION

In this action for declaratory and injunctive relief under the Endangered Species Act, the

Service seeks to modify the court-ordered deadline for preparing a new rule. For the reasons

stated below, the motion is GRANTED IN PART. 

STATEMENT

This case concerns the Pacific fisher — a medium-sized brown mammal in the weasel

family found in Washington, Oregon, and California. A prior order on the parties’ crossmotions for summary judgment set forth the detailed background of this case (see Dkt. No. 80). 

Case 3:16-cv-06040-WHA Document 91 Filed 11/20/18 Page 1 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

In October 2014, the Service proposed to list the Pacific fisher as “threatened” after a

fourteen year long effort by various organizations to list the population as such. In the proposed

rule, the Service concluded that the main threats or stressors to the Pacific fisher were “habitat

loss from wildfire and vegetation management; toxicants (including anticoagulant rodenticides);

and the cumulative and synergistic effects of these and other stressors acting on small

populations” (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 2; AR 000677). 

In April 2016, the Service reversed course and withdrew the proposed rule after

concluding that, in light of public comments and new information, the Pacific fisher population

was stable such that none of the identified stressors amounted to a “threat” under the Act. 

In October 2016, plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity, Environmental Protection

Information Center, Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, and Sierra Forest Legacy filed the

instant action, seeking judicial review of the Service’s final rule withdrawing the Pacific

fisher’s proposed listing. 

An order dated September 21 on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment held

that the Service had arbitrarily and capriciously withdrawn the proposed listing under the

Administrative Procedure Act (Dkt. No. 80). That order found that the Service failed to make a

rational connection between studies suggesting the adverse impact of toxicant exposure (one of

the previously identified threats in the proposed rule) on the Pacific fisher population and the

Service’s conclusion that toxicant exposure did not ultimately pose a threat. It further found

that the Service’s use of the then-available population trend studies failed to support such a

conclusion. Although that order did not (and did not need to) reach plaintiffs’ arguments as to

the other identified stressors, it advised the Service to “consider and address those further points

made by plaintiffs as well” (id. at 7–16). 

Accordingly, the order vacated the Service’s withdrawal, remanded the action, denied

the Service’s request for supplemental briefing on the question of remedy in the event of

remand, and gave the Service six months (a March 22, 2019 deadline) to prepare a new rule in

light of the order (id. at 17). 

Case 3:16-cv-06040-WHA Document 91 Filed 11/20/18 Page 2 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 The Service has not indicated that it plans to appeal the summary judgment order. 

3

The Service now seeks to amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) to modify the remedy. 

It argues that, following the summary judgment order, the Service reviewed its available

staffing, budget, and competing project priorities (which include other court-ordered deadlines)

and accordingly determined the March 2019 deadline infeasible. The Service now seeks to

modify the deadline for a new rule to July 21, 2020 (Dkt. No. 86 at 1).1

 Plaintiffs oppose,

arguing that the six-month deadline is reasonable (Dkt. No. 87). 

This order follows full briefing. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), this order finds the

Service’s motion suitable for submission without oral argument and hereby VACATES the

hearing scheduled for November 29. 

ANALYSIS

1. LEGAL STANDARD.

Rule 59(e) allows a party to move to amend or alter a judgment within twenty-eight days

of its entry. A Rule 59(e) motion is generally granted on four basic grounds: “(1) if such

motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment rests; (2)

if such motion is necessary to present newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3)

if such motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) if the amendment is justified by

an intervening change in controlling law.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111

(9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). Because the rule does not list the specific grounds for the

motion, however, “the district court enjoys considerable discretion in granting or denying the

motion.” Ibid. 

2. REMEDY IN LIGHT OF NEW INFORMATION.

The Service argues that at the time of summary judgment motion briefing, information

required to fully address the issue of remedy was not available. Specifically, the Service

explains that without an order on the scope of remand, it was difficult to gauge an appropriate

timeline required to address the Court’s findings on the Service’s errors (Dkt. No. 86 at 2). An

appropriate timeline is further affected by the Service’s current staffing, workloads, budget, and

competing agency priorities, including other court-ordered deadlines (id. at 2–3). 

Case 3:16-cv-06040-WHA Document 91 Filed 11/20/18 Page 3 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Now armed with newly available information gathered in light of the summary judgment

order, the Service explains that it “has prepared an aggressive, but reasonably achievable

schedule for addressing the errors identified in” the summary judgment order. This proposed

schedule, the Service asserts, accounts for requirements under the Act and new and current

information on the Service’s staffing levels, workload, budget, and competing priorities (Dkt.

No. 86 at 3–4). 

The summary judgment order found that the Service failed to adequately consider

information on toxicant exposure and population trend studies in reversing the proposed listing

(Dkt. No. 80 at 7–8, 13–15). That order further suggested that the Service reexamine its

conclusions criticized by plaintiffs as to the other identified stressors that the order did not

reach, including wildfire and small population size (id. at 16). The Service therefore contends

that the order’s findings “reinforce the need for the Service’s remanded final determination to

be based on the best available scientific and commercial information” and that it “cannot simply

convert” the proposed rule into a new final listing termination (Dkt. No. 86-1 ¶¶ 4, 25).

For example, the Service explains that the wildfire issue has attracted “a great deal of

attention” — and unsurprisingly so, given the frequency and intensity of wildfires in the

northern California-southern Oregon area in recent years (see id. ¶ 4). The Service notes that

new information exists relating to the Pacific fishers’ immediate response to post-fire

landscapes in that area, as over one million acres of forest have experienced wildfires since the

fall of 2015, with over 700,000 acres of forest burned in 2018 alone (ibid.). 

As such, the Service now intends to undertake a number of specified steps to gather and

analyze new information of this type “to ensure that the listing decision is made on the best

available data” — all of which combined result in the Service’s requested July 2020 deadline

(Dkt. No. 86 at 1, 4). 

This order agrees that new information since the proposed rule, such as that on wildfires,

should be considered as part of the best available information. Accordingly, an extension

beyond the original deadline is warranted — though not the full extension the Service seeks. 

Case 3:16-cv-06040-WHA Document 91 Filed 11/20/18 Page 4 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Service notes that the region responsible for this action currently has thirty-eight petition findings scheduled,

as well as an additional eight 12-month findings, two final listing determinations, and one final critical habitat determination

from new 90-day petition findings, new litigation-related work, and carryover work from prior fiscal years (Dkt. No. 86-1

¶ 20).

5

The Service explains it intends to reopen the comment period on the 2014 proposed rule

(and has already begun this process) to obtain public input on the issues identified in the

summary judgment order and any new information since the time of the proposed rule. This

process, according to the Service, will require five months — three months to draft the notice,

obtain management approval, and publish the notice, and two months for public comment (Dkt.

No. 86-1 ¶ 8). The Service then states that, after reviewing the best available information and

the public comments thereto, drafting and reviewing the Final Register document reflecting the

listing determination will take an additional two months to complete (id. ¶¶ 13–14). Next,

required reviews of the Final Register document by the Service managers and Department of

the Interior and the publication of the notice in the Final Register will take, according to the

Service, a minimum of three months (id. ¶ 15). 

The Service next explains that three possible scenarios may occur at the time of

publication of the notice: if the Service (1) finds listing is not warranted, the Final Register

document will be a withdrawal of the proposed rule (and will constitute the final

determination); (2) finds listing is warranted and “such finding follows logically from” the

proposed rule, the Final Register document will be a final listing rule; or (3) finds that listing is

warranted, but “that determination does not follow logically from the proposed rule,” the Final

Register document will constitute a revised proposed rule to list the Pacific fisher as endangered

or threatened (id. ¶ 16).

Under the third scenario, the Service further explains that it would be required to

provide a public comment period of thirty days (id. ¶ 17). At the end of the comment period,

another six months would be required to publish a final determination (id. ¶ 18).

This order finds that, under these circumstances, deadlines consistent with Section

1533(b)(6) is warranted in order to provide sufficient time, in light of competing priorities, to

assess the best available information and to engage in meaningful public notice and comment.2

Case 3:16-cv-06040-WHA Document 91 Filed 11/20/18 Page 5 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 This is not to say that the Service cannot perform a species status assessment. Rather, this order simply does not

grant extra time beyond the statutory deadlines for the sake of performing it. 

6

That is, the Service shall have one year from the date the withdrawal was vacated (until

September 21, 2019) to publish a notice of withdrawal, final listing, or revised proposed rule

(pursuant to Dkt. No. 86-1 ¶ 16). In the event the Service chooses to file a revised proposed

rule, then it shall have six months (until March 21, 2020) to publish a final determination. 

The Service, however, has not sufficiently shown a compelling need for the requested

additional four months beyond the statutory mandate — especially given, as plaintiffs point out,

the already long, drawn-out listing history for the Pacific fisher. The Service states that it

wishes to perform a “species status assessment” — the agency’s new process (unavailable at the

time of the 2014 proposed rule) developed to help inform listing decisions by providing

“essential scientific underpinnings and analyses of the best available data about the species and

its status” — on remand (id. ¶ 9). It asserts that using the species status assessment “generally

leads to stronger assessments and improved and more transparent decisions” (ibid.). 

The Service, however, offers no persuasive reason as to why the species status

assessment must be performed at this time or why a standard assessment would be inadequate. 

Instead, the Service simply states that it “would like to have time to complete one” this time

(ibid.). This, by itself, is insufficient to justify the additional four months required by this

process alone — two months from the end of the public comment period to complete the draft

species status assessment, one month to complete peer review of the species status assessment,

and one month to incorporate said peer review input into the species status assessment (id. ¶¶

9–11). Without the four months apparently needed to complete the species status assessment,

the Service should be in a position to publish one of the three possible Federal Register

documents (withdrawal, final listing, or revised proposed rule) within one year.3

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Service’s motion is GRANTED IN PART. The Service shall

have until SEPTEMBER 21, 2019 to publish a notice in the Federal Register (of withdrawal, final

Case 3:16-cv-06040-WHA Document 91 Filed 11/20/18 Page 6 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

listing, or revised proposed rule). In the event the Service chooses to publish a revised

proposed rule, then it shall have until MARCH 21, 2020 to publish a final determination. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 20, 2018. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:16-cv-06040-WHA Document 91 Filed 11/20/18 Page 7 of 7