Opinion ID: 6500751
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Western Watersheds’ Appeal

Text: We turn next to Western Watersheds’ appeal. Western Watersheds challenges FWS’s decision to continue managed livestock grazing on Clear Lake Refuge. Western Watersheds argues that FWS violated NEPA by failing to consider a formal reduced-grazing alternative and by failing to take a hard look at the effects of continued grazing on the greater sage-grouse and two species of suckerfish. Western Watersheds further maintains that FWS violated the Refuge Act because, in its view, grazing is an incompatible use of the Refuge. We hold, however, that FWS did not act arbitrarily, capriciously, or contrary to law in continuing the long-standing practice of managed grazing on Clear Lake Refuge.
The Conservation Plan considered two alternatives for grazing on Clear Lake Refuge. Under Alternative A, the noaction alternative, FWS would continue authorizing “intensively managed cattle grazing” on the Refuge between mid-August to mid-November. Under Alternative B, FWS would add an experimental grazing period in the spring, creating new pastures to be “grazed with 300 to 500 cattle from March 1 to mid-April.” The agency ultimately adopted Alternative B. CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. HAALAND 39 Western Watersheds argues that FWS violated NEPA by not considering a reduced-grazing or no-grazing alternative. But FWS adequately explained in the Conservation Plan why these alternatives were not reasonable. We again start with the Conservation Plan’s unchallenged statement of purposes and needs, see Westlands, 376 F.3d at 865, which explained that the agency’s objective was to “develop and implement a comprehensive 15-year management plan for the Refuge Complex consistent with refuge purposes; refuge goals and objectives; and applicable laws, regulations, and policies.” The very first goal that FWS included for Clear Lake Refuge was to “[p]rotect, maintain, and restore sagebrush-steppe and associated upland and wetland communities characteristic of the Great Basin ecosystem.” FWS was required only to “‘briefly discuss’ the reasons” for eliminating from detailed consideration a reducedgrazing alternative. See Protect Our Communities, 825 F.3d at 581 (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a)). And “[t]he rule of reason ‘guides both the choice of alternatives as well as the extent to which the [Plan] must discuss each alternative.’” City of Sausalito, 386 F.3d at 1207 (quoting City of Carmel, 123 F.3d at 1155). Here, FWS provided sufficient reasons for not including a reduced-grazing alternative for Clear Lake Refuge. Most centrally, the Conservation Plan explained grazing was necessary to promote sage-steppe habitat, on which the greater sage-grouse depends. In particular, grazing was needed to “control priority weed species with an emphasis on protecting high-priority wildlife habitats,” “control invasive annual grasses and juniper seedlings,” “reduce wildfire fuels,” “assist with restoration of habitat on the east side of the ‘U’ Unit that was damaged by the Clear Fire,” 40 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. HAALAND and “allow for accelerated sagebrush restoration and prevent further destruction of this desired habitat.” To ensure that grazing “would support the Refuge’s habitat goals, would not conflict with the other Refuge goals, and would not materially interfere with or detract from fulfillment of Clear Lake NWR’s purposes or the Refuge System’s mission,” FWS discussed various scientific analyses, cited nearly thirty academic sources, and imposed more than a dozen stipulations on participating ranchers. Far from consisting of “only narratives of expert opinions,” Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 387 F.3d 989, 996 (9th Cir. 2004), the Conservation Plan described the manner in which grazing would continue to be implemented and explained that, for the spring grazing period, “[e]xperimental plots would initially be established to fine tune th[e] strategy (e.g., number of cattle, duration, and timing).” In addition, the “mix, acreage, locations, and timing of management techniques deployed during any particular year would be based on an assessment of current and likely future habitat conditions and wildlife needs.” In response to Western Watersheds’ comments about the potential harm that grazing could cause wildlife, FWS “disagree[d] that habitat management using prescriptive grazing, herbicide treatments, and juniper removal would harm resources on the refuge.” FWS described “invasive annual grasses and the western juniper” as a “management challenge,” with western juniper constituting “one of the greatest risks to the continued existence of sage grouse in this area.” Juniper “out-competes desirable vegetation (e.g., sagebrush, other shrubs, forbs, and grasses)” that sagegrouse rely on, with the Conservation Plan noting that “[j]uniper expansion has been documented as one cause for greater sage-grouse to abandon leks.” Other invasive CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. HAALAND 41 grasses, like cheatgrass and medusahead, also “out-compete perennial bunchgrasses and some other native plants (e.g., forbs and sagebrush) that provide valuable wildlife habitat.” These invasive grasses at the same time “provide an abundance of fine fuels for wildfires and can increase the intensity and severity of wildfires.” FWS thus explained that grazing “is used to create short grass areas for spring foraging by geese; reduce the extent of exotic annual grasses; help rehabilitate previously burned sagebrush habitats by providing native shrubs, bunchgrasses, and forbs with a competitive edge; and reduce the quantity of fine fuels and the potential for future wildfires” (which, FWS noted, “can set back sagebrush restoration for decades”). In short, FWS concluded that managed grazing was necessary for ensuring sage-grouse habitat, and it sufficiently explained that position. Western Watersheds also focused its public comments on the fact that no “reductions or removal of livestock” were analyzed in the Conservation Plan. But FWS in response reiterated that “grazing is a management method that is highly controlled at Clear Lake,” and that the “the timing, intensity[,] and duration of grazing are all managed to produce a specific result based on the habitat objectives.” In the spring, for instance, “non-native cheatgrass and medusahead are preferentially grazed by cattle,” so FWS therefore proposed “short-term, intense grazing at this time of year specifically to help slower growing native bunchgrasses flourish.” FWS cited supporting research “indicat[ing] that this kind of grazing . . . reduces annual grasses and increases native perennials and forbs,” and concluded that grazing opens “areas that would otherwise be choked with vegetation and sub-optimal for use by waterfowl.” 42 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. HAALAND FWS also rejected using only alternative methods of controlling invasive plants, without using grazing. In particular, FWS explained that other alternatives, such as herbicides or machine mowing, would not be fully effective in controlling invasive species, and that mowing in some areas posed particular fire risks. In doing so, FWS did not “end[] its inquiry at the beginning” or “uncritically assume[]” a particular result. Block, 690 F.2d at 767. Instead, FWS reasonably explained that grazing was necessary for sage-grouse habitat preservation and restoration, and then considered a reasonable range of grazing alternatives. Western Watersheds nonetheless argues that reduced grazing and no grazing were reasonable alternatives that had to be considered. In this regard, Western Watersheds relies principally on our decision in Western Watersheds Project v. Abbey, 719 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2013). But Abbey was a very different case. There, we held that the Bureau of Land Management was required to consider reduced-grazing alternatives in planning a national monument. Id. at 1050– 53. But Abbey involved a challenge to both an EIS for the national monument as well as an Environmental Assessment (EA) for a particular allotment of land. Id. at 1039. Abbey held that the EIS complied with NEPA, but the site-specific EA did not. Id. at 1045, 1053. The distinction mattered: “Where modification of grazing practices is not considered at a programmatic level . . . it is all the more important that agency actions on site-specific areas give a hard and careful look at grazing impacts.” Id. at 1051. Here, the Conservation Plan is a programmatic document covering five National Wildlife Refuges, similar to the EIS that withstood a NEPA challenge in Abbey. And even so, unlike the EA in Abbey, the Conservation Plan CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. HAALAND 43 sufficiently analyzes site-specific grazing effects. For instance, the Clear Lake Refuge compatibility determination acknowledged that excessive grazing can “result in vegetation trampling” and “soil disturbance/erosion,” and can “transfer invasive species,” among other undesirable effects. But FWS concluded that its grazing program is properly managed and would be unlikely to produce these harms, particularly as “grazing has occurred on the Refuge for decades without major problems associated with these effects.” Abbey does not mandate consideration of reduced- grazing alternatives in situations, like here, in which the agency has provided sufficient explanation for its decision not to analyze an alternative that it does not view as reasonable. FWS sufficiently explained that a reducedgrazing alternative was not reasonable, given the Conservation Plan’s purposes and needs. See Protect Our Communities, 825 F.3d at 581; Alaska Survival, 705 F.3d at 1087. Ultimately, FWS concluded that continued grazing would “help achieve its wildlife and habitat objectives,” while reduced grazing would “have the opposite overall effect.” It is not our role to question that informed scientific judgment. See Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Ilano, 928 F.3d 774, 782–83 (9th Cir. 2019) (explaining that the Forest Service had not acted arbitrarily or capriciously because it had “relied upon scientific studies and its own expert judgment, to which we must defer”). Western Watersheds further argues that FWS should have at least considered an alternative that would eliminate livestock grazing on the western portion of Clear Lake Refuge on the adjacent Modoc National Forest (which is not part of the U). Based on an interagency agreement with Modoc, about 300 head of cattle are allowed to access only 44 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. HAALAND part of the Refuge, and even then only for about three weeks a year beginning in mid-July, long after the sage-grouse nesting period in the spring. FWS explained the benefits of limited grazing on the Refuges generally, and as to Modoc in particular: grazing in that specific area “provide[s] the refuge biological benefits by enhancing Canada goose grazing and reducing fuels and fire threats.” The Conservation Plan also relied on an earlier analysis of the effects of Modoc grazing prepared by the Forest Service that was only two years old at the beginning of the planning process, and that permitted the grazing to continue. Western Watersheds has not shown that Modoc livestock would materially interfere with sage-grouse on the U, let alone with any other wildlife. FWS thus adequately explained its reasons for not considering an alternative that would eliminate limited grazing with cattle from the adjacent Modoc National Forest. And while Western Watersheds argues that FWS should have simply fenced the western boundary to keep cattle out of the Refuge, FWS reasonably explained that a fence could harm wildlife and impede their travel. 4 In short, FWS reasonably explained that managed grazing on Clear Lake Refuge was essential to protecting 4 In letters filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j), Western Watersheds and CBD argue that our recent decision in Environmental Defense Center v. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 36 F.4th 850 (9th Cir. 2022), indicates that FWS’s alternatives analyses were deficient. But in Environmental Defense Center, which involved an agency’s consideration of oil well stimulation treatments that it wrongly believed would not be used more than five times per year, the agency failed to consider a reasonable range of alternatives. Id. at 876– 78. Here, by contrast, FWS considered a reasonable range of alternatives given the Conservation Plan’s purpose and need. CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. HAALAND 45 and restoring sage-grouse habitat. FWS thus did not violate NEPA by failing to consider a formal reduced-grazing alternative.
FWS also took a sufficiently hard look at the effects of grazing on Clear Lake Refuge. We again apply a “‘rule of reason’ analysis to determine whether the discussion of the environmental consequences included in the EIS is sufficiently thorough.” Ctr. for Biological Diversity, 982 F.3d at 734 (quoting Kern, 284 F.3d at 1071). Western Watersheds argues that FWS failed to give adequate consideration to the effects of grazing on greater sage-grouse and two species of endangered suckerfish. As we now explain, these additional challenges fail. 1 We start with the sage-grouse. The Conservation Plan discussed at length the potential effects of grazing on sagegrouse and why grazing would be beneficial to sage-grouse habitat. Grazing “would give native perennial grasses and forbs a competitive advantage, help restore native habitats, and reduce the abundance of fine fuels,” thus lessening “the frequency, intensity, and spread of wildfires” and “enhanc[ing] the growth and survival of shrubs, such as sagebrush, that are very slow-growing.” “This would all benefit sage brush-obligate species, such as sage grouse, that prefer habitats composed of forbs, moderate-height grasses, and larger-diameter sagebrush.” With respect to the new spring grazing period, FWS explained that “light to moderate spring grazing could also make forbs more accessible to pre-laying sage grouse hens by removing standing herbage.” 46 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. HAALAND But FWS also recognized that improperly managed grazing could “prevent nesting attempts; cause nest abandonment; trample nests, eggs, and young; and otherwise disturb ground-nesting birds.” FWS acknowledged some uncertainty as to the amount of competition “for food resources on the lakeshore between cattle, mule deer, pronghorn, and sage grouse,” and thus committed to investigating experimental enclosures to allow “grasses and forbs [to] grow tall and become available to deer and sage grouse broods (as they are able to access the area inside the e[n]closure while cattle are not able to enter).” Overall, FWS concluded that the negative effects of the limited, managed grazing program on sage-grouse were outweighed by the positive effects of the program. Western Watersheds principally takes issue with the agency’s determination that the planned spring grazing would not significantly disturb sage-grouse nests. But FWS explained that the spring grazing—the only grazing that would overlap with the sage-grouse nesting season—would occur on the fire-damaged east side of the U, and “no hens are known to nest in that area due to the lack of sage brush cover.” Western Watersheds disputes this, but the agency’s factual determination, which is based on nearly a decade of monitoring data, merits deference. See Native Ecosystems, 697 F.3d at 1051; N. Plains, 668 F.3d at 1075. The record also demonstrates that in 2013, the most recent year that data was available, nesting attempts only took place on the western portion of the U. Western Watersheds dismisses the 2013 nesting season as anomalous, pointing instead to data from the California Department of Fish and Game. But Western Watersheds has not demonstrated that this data establishes more than a handful of successful nesting attempts between 2007 and CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. HAALAND 47 2012 in the new areas that FWS would allow for grazing. And FWS did not rule out the possibility of future hens nesting on the east side of the U. Indeed, a driving purpose of the grazing program is to restore sagebrush habitat in that area, and hopefully increase successful sage-grouse nesting. FWS thus emphasized that the spring grazing program was experimental and subject to monitoring. Moreover, FWS reasonably determined that even to the extent grazing would disturb sage-grouse nests, “the larger and longer-term habitat benefits of a properly conducted program would far outweigh such negative effects.” 5 Western Watersheds also maintains that FWS failed to evaluate the combined effects on sagebrush habitat of adding a spring grazing period to the existing fall grazing period. That argument is unavailing. Western Watersheds’ argument is at odds with the agency’s considered view of the grazing program, which FWS believes will improve sagegrouse habitat over time, not deplete it. FWS explained that “when properly managed, this habitat management practice would be expected to increase the value of Refuge habitats for a diversity of wildlife species, including sage grouse and geese.” (Emphasis added). On this score, the Conservation Plan included as support for its cumulative impact analysis the joint “Conservation and Recovery Strategy for Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) and Sagebrush Ecosystems Within the 5 Western Watersheds argues the Conservation Plan provided only a brief response to a study by Michael D. Reisner, et al., suggesting that large-scale grazing could harm native grasses. But that does not render FWS’s NEPA analysis deficient. The record reflects a robust consideration of the available scientific evidence, and “FWS is free to choose among experts.” Zinke, 900 F.3d at 1068 (citing Conner v. Burford, 848 F.2d 1441, 1454 (9th Cir. 1988)). 48 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. HAALAND Devil’s Garden / Clear Lake Population Management Unit”—or “Sage-Grouse Recovery Plan” for short. That separate multi-agency plan to grow Clear Lake Refuge’s sage-grouse population was developed just two years before the Conservation Plan’s scoping process began. And it specifically included spring and fall grazing periods as part of the sage-grouse recovery strategy. While Western Watersheds may disagree with the agency’s reasoned scientific judgment about the effects of grazing on sagegrouse habitat, the Conservation Plan does not reflect a failure to consider the cumulative effects of grazing on sagegrouse. 6 For the same reason, we reject Western Watersheds’ argument that FWS failed to evaluate the cumulative effects to sage-grouse of grazing on the adjacent Modoc National Forest. The Modoc livestock do not access the U. FWS’s conclusion that managed grazing would be conducive to sage-grouse recovery, based on its considered evaluation of the grazing program as a whole, a fortiori applies to the effects of the more minimal, incidental Modoc grazing on the Refuge. 6 In referencing the Sage-Grouse Recovery Plan, FWS did not improperly “tier” to it. “‘Tiering refers to the coverage of general matters in broader environmental impact statements . . . with subsequent narrower statements . . . incorporating by reference the general discussions and concentrating solely on the issues specific to the statement subsequently prepared.’” Klamath-Siskiyou, 387 F.3d at 997 (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 1508.28). FWS did not tier to the Sage-Grouse Recovery Plan or attempt to use it as a substitute NEPA analysis. Instead, FWS performed its own NEPA analysis and merely cited the Sage-Grouse Recovery Plan for additional support. CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. HAALAND 49 We thus hold that the agency took a sufficiently hard look at the effects of grazing on sage-grouse, including the cumulative effects. 2 We further conclude that the Conservation Plan took a sufficiently hard look at the effects of managed livestock grazing on suckerfish in Clear Lake Refuge. FWS acknowledged that grazing “can adversely affect aquatic environments,” but concluded that it had “no empirical data that shows that current grazing practices adversely affect the primary constituent elements (PCEs) of critical habitat for suckers in Clear Lake.” The Conservation Plan explained that suckerfish spawn in upstream rivers from February through May (when the spring grazing would occur). The Plan also recognized that “[l]arval habitat is generally along the shoreline,” which grazing cattle could access. Shoreline habitat is often “associated with emergent aquatic vegetation,” which “provides cover from predators, protection from currents and turbulence, and abundant prey.” But although “[e]xcessive grazing could result” in “turbidity” if “livestock were allowed access to surface waters,” FWS believed that because grazing at the Refuge is “localized and seasonal,” any such effect would likely be “only occasional, of short duration[,] and no more than minor.” FWS’s experimental spring grazing pastures would also include water troughs distant from the lakeshore to discourage livestock from accessing the shoreline. In addition, FWS emphasized that “grazing has occurred on the Refuge for decades without major problems associated with [negative] effects, and stipulations associated with this use would greatly reduce the likelihood and significance of any potential impacts of this nature.” 50 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. HAALAND This was not an admission that the effects of grazing on Clear Lake suckerfish was “unknown,” see Nat’l Parks & Conservation Ass’n v. Babbitt, 241 F.3d 722, 732–733 (9th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds by Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139 (2010), but a recognition that grazing was not known to have been harmful based on extensive past experience. And in any event, the agency added that “consultation for the [Conservation Plan] will be conducted pursuant to section 7 of the federal ESA, for federally-listed species and their critical habitat,” which includes suckerfish, and “conservation measures . . . will be implemented to protect listed species and their habitat that occur on the refuge, as applicable.” To this end, within days of adopting the Conservation Plan, and as it indicated it would, FWS issued a 2017 Biological Assessment (BA) to evaluate further the effects of the Conservation Plan’s management actions, including Clear Lake grazing, on eleven threatened species. The 2017 BA, though not a replacement for the NEPA analysis that FWS included in the Conservation Plan, was contemplated in the Plan as a further protective measure for threatened species. Like the Conservation Plan, the BA acknowledged the potential for indirect “contamination of aquatic habitats” and “increased turbidity” when grazing is “done without consideration of the timing of entrance and egress, placement of watering systems, and mineral blocks.” But the 2017 BA concluded that “[t]here are no direct effects to suckers with grazing on the refuge where it is used.” The BA also addressed possible reductions in suckerfish food supply but found that the “reductions would likely be a secondary effect to impacts that resulted from direct effects and may not be notic[ed] or measurable for multiple years.” The BA ultimately concluded that “[b]ased on available CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. HAALAND 51 species occurrence data, knowledge of seasonal habitat usage, discussions with species experts, and implementation of best management practices, [the] management actions outlined above and in the [Conservation Plan] may affect[] but are not likely to adversely affect Lost River or shortnose suckers.” FWS also was not obligated to conduct additional studies into the effects of grazing on suckerfish. When there is “incomplete information relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts” that is “essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives and the overall costs of obtaining it are not exorbitant,” an agency must obtain and include the missing information. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22(a); see also WildEarth Guardians v. Mont. Snowmobile Ass’n, 790 F.3d 920, 927 (9th Cir. 2015). But here the agency reasonably determined—based on the long history of grazing on the Refuge and the limits FWS imposed on it—that grazing would not have materially adverse effects on suckerfish. Western Watersheds has not demonstrated that other information was “essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives.” See 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22(a). 7 Western Watersheds also maintains that FWS failed to give adequate consideration to the cumulative effects of grazing on suckerfish. But FWS said in the Conservation Plan’s “Cumulative Impacts” section that “adverse affects to [suckers, among others] are not likely.” FWS also relied on a joint Biological Opinion issued in 2013 by FWS and the 7 To the extent that Western Watersheds relies on an internal reviewer’s comments about the Conservation Plan’s treatment of suckerfish, FWS responded to that comment by committing to producing the BA that was issued within days of the Conservation Plan, and that addressed the reviewer’s concerns. 52 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. HAALAND National Marine Fisheries Service, where “[c]umulative effects to both species of sucker [we]re enumerated.” FWS proceeded to discuss a variety of threats to suckerfish populations, including “ongoing warming and drought,” and concluded that the best way to support suckerfish populations was “to improve water quality” and quantity— which, for reasons previously discussed, remains a substantial challenge for FWS in managing the Refuges. The 2017 BA similarly considered the cumulative effects to suckerfish of “future, State, tribal, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur,” and did not anticipate any adverse cumulative effects to suckerfish as a result of Clear Lake grazing. Finally, the Conservation Plan explained that the suckerfish population was threatened for reasons independent of grazing. The Conservation Plan describes suckers as “relatively abundant in Clear Lake,” but with “lower frequency of large individuals present compared to data from the 1990s,” suggesting “relatively good recruitment but low adult survivorship.” The Plan recounted how the suckerfish population was dependent on sufficient water levels. In other words, the threat to sucker populations is not that larvae have inadequate shoreline habitat, as one might expect if grazing were significantly degrading the shoreline. To this point, FWS has explained that the decline in suckerfish population over time is attributable to a 64% loss of lake and wetland habitat and to “blocked access to spawning and rearing areas, low instream flows, entrainment losses resulting from diversions, and other factors.” For all of these reasons, the agency took a sufficiently hard look at the effects of grazing on suckerfish. CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. HAALAND 53
For the same reasons that FWS’s decision to continue managed grazing on Clear Lake Refuge does not violate NEPA, it does not violate the Refuge Act either. Western Watersheds argues that the agency failed to ensure that grazing was a compatible use of the Refuge. See 16 U.S.C. § 668dd(d)(3)(A)(i). But, as explained, FWS reasonably decided to continue managed grazing for the benefit of sagegrouse, and, for the same reasons, reasonably determined that grazing would “not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the System or the purposes of the refuge.” See 16 U.S.C. § 668ee(1). FWS thus did not violate the Refuge Act in authorizing continued grazing on Clear Lake Refuge.