Opinion ID: 3038902
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Legal Effect

Text: [8] The district court interpreted Bennett to hold that an 12 The dissent cites Montana Wilderness Association, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service and Chemical Weapons in support of its pragmatic assessment that the AOIs merely implement an earlier final decision. Dissenting Opinion at 11856. In Montana Wilderness, we held that trail maintenance did not constitute final agency action for purposes of judicial review under the APA. 314 F.3d 1146, 1150 (9th Cir. 2003), vacated on other grounds by SUWA. In rejecting plaintiffs’ claims under the Montana Wilderness Study Act, Pub. No. 95-150, 91 Stat. 1243 (1977), we noted that the Forest Service’s trail maintenance activities “implement[ed] its trail management and forest plans adopted for the study area.” Id. We concluded that “the maintenance of trails designated by those plans [was] merely an interim aspect of the planning process, not the consummation of it.” Id. Here, the AOIs are not part of an interim planning process. Instead, as even the dissent seems to acknowledge, the AOIs represent the consummation of a process, which results in the imposition of enforceable rights and obligations on the permittee. In Chemical Weapons Working Group, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Army, 111 F.3d 1485 (10th Cir. 1997), the plaintiffs challenged the Defense Department’s plan to destroy chemical weapons by incinerating them. The Tenth Circuit held that the plaintiffs’ maximum protection claim was not ripe for judicial review under the APA because the two trial burns that were at issue did not constitute final agency action. In light of the Department’s prior final decision to incinerate the chemical weapons, the court concluded that the later trial burns merely implemented the earlier final decision. Notably, the plaintiffs were unable to provide any information demonstrating that the Department had revisited its plan to incinerate the weapons. The discrete circumstances in Chemical Weapons differ considerably from the annual process through which the Forest Service issues AOIs, as does the substantive nature of the AOIs compared to the destruction of weapons at issue in that case. The issuance of an AOI is not a discrete event designed to test the feasibility of a course of action periodically adopted by a governmental agency, but rather is a final decision that sets the annual parameters of the grazing program and which imposes legal consequences on permittees. 11848 OREGON NATURAL DESERT v. USFS agency action is not a final agency action unless it “alter[s] the legal regime to which the action agency is subject.” With this understanding, the district court concluded that an AOI is not a final agency action because it does not alter the legal regime to which the Forest Service is subject. The district court’s understanding of Bennett’s second prong is, however, not supported by Bennett. In Bennett, the Court held that an agency action that consummated the agency’s decisionmaking process (Bennett’s first requirement) would be final if the action is one “by which rights or obligations have been determined, or from which legal consequences will flow.” 520 U.S. at 178 (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added). It then held, on the facts of that case, that this second requirement was met because the challenged action altered the legal regime to which the Secretary of Interior was subject. Id. The Court did not, however, hold that alteration of the federal agency’s legal regime was the only way in which an agency action could satisfy the second finality requirement. [9] Courts have consistently interpreted Bennett to provide several avenues for meeting the second finality requirement. We have held that “[t]he general rule is that administrative orders are not final and reviewable ‘unless and until they impose an obligation, deny a right, or fix some legal relationship as a consummation of the administrative process.’ ” Ukiah Valley Med. Ctr., 911 F.2d at 264 (quoting Chi. & S. Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 333 U.S. 103, 113 (1948)) (emphasis added). The legal relationship need not alter the legal regime to which the involved federal agency is subject. See, e.g., Alaska Dep’t of Envtl. Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461, 482-83 (2004) (holding that EPA’s order under the Clean Air Act prohibiting the Alaskan Department of Environment from issuing permits to a zinc mining company was a final agency action because the order effectively halted construction of the mine through the threat of civil and criminal penalties, despite lack of alteration of EPA’s legal regime); Cal. Dep’t of Educ., 833 F.2d at 833 (holding that the Department of Education’s letter informing state that OREGON NATURAL DESERT v. USFS 11849 interest would accrue was a final agency action despite lack of alteration of the Department’s legal regime); Idaho Watersheds Project, 307 F.3d at 828 (holding that BLM’s issuance of grazing permits constituted final agency action despite lack of alteration of BLM’s legal regime). These cases demonstrate that Bennett’s second requirement can be met through different kinds of agency actions, not only one that alters an agency’s legal regime. Indeed, we have said that an agency action may be final if it has a “ ‘direct and immediate . . . effect on the day-to-day business’ of the subject party.” Ukiah Valley Med. Ctr., 911 F.2d at 264 (quoting Standard Oil, 449 U.S. at 239). We consider “whether the [action] has the status of law or comparable legal force, and whether immediate compliance with its terms is expected.” Id. In light of these rules, we turn to whether an AOI has any legal effect that would qualify it as a final agency action under Bennett’s second finality requirement. In Anchustegui, the plaintiff challenged the government’s attempt to impose sanctions for his failure to comply with restrictions on cattle grazing delineated in an AOI. 257 F.3d at 1126. We noted, as described above, that the Forest Service uses the AOI to set annual grazing specifications for the permit holder. Notably, we recognized that an AOI contains “directives” that, if not followed, can trigger the Forest Service to institute agency proceedings against the subject grazing permittee. Id. at 1126-28. While Anchustegui does not principally concern the function of an AOI, it aids our understanding that an AOI carries legal consequences. The administrative record in this appeal also supports this conclusion. 11850 OREGON NATURAL DESERT v. USFS
Permit Action Against Howard and Butler Ranches If a permittee does not comply with the directives in the AOI, the Forest Service can issue a Notice of Non- Compliance (NONC) to the permit holder. See Anchustegui, 257 F.3d at 1129 (explaining administrative notice process under 5 U.S.C. § 558(b),(c), with which Forest Service must comply before taking “permit action”). As the record demonstrates, the Forest Service issued a NONC to the Howard Ranch on July 14, 2004. Howard Ranch obtained a grazing permit for pastures within the Bluebucket Allotment in 1996. The 2004 AOI recommended that the Ranch monitor certain “move triggers” to increase the likelihood of moving its livestock before reaching utilization limits. It also stated a reduction in Howard Ranch’s 2004 “Allowable Use Standards” based on the allotment’s classification in the Malheur Forest Plan and consultation requirements under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (“ESA”), 87 Stat. 884 (codified at 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-43). The NONC informed Howard Ranch of its failure to meet conditions in both its grazing permit and its AOI, including exceeding utilization standards and failing to follow the 2004 AOI grazing schedule for pasture moves.13 On January 26, 2005, the Forest Service notified Howard Ranch that it decided to take “permit action” by suspending 25% of the Ranch’s permitted head of livestock, as warned in 13 The NONC stated: Your Term Grazing Permit # 01663, signed and dated by you, states that you will follow annual instructions of the Forest Officer. You have failed to comply with your permit . . . and your 2004 AOI (excess use in violation of Malheur Forest Plan utilization standards and failure to follow pasture move dates in AOI without advance approval from the Forest). Based on the violations of your Term Grazing Permit, I am considering suspending 25% of your permitted numbers and/or suspending your season for two years. OREGON NATURAL DESERT v. USFS 11851 the NONC. The notification identified violations of the AOI and imposed a modification of the underlying grazing permit as the appropriate sanction for the violation. See also 36 C.F.R. § 222.4(a)(4) (authorizing Forest Service to cancel or suspend grazing permit if permittee does not comply with provisions and requirements of permit or governing regulations). [10] Similarly, in a separate NONC to Butler Ranch for violation of the 2004 North Fork Allotment AOI, the Forest Service stated: “Failure to follow the direction set forth in the Annual Operating Instructions and my August 6 letter, and exceeding allowable use standards is a violation of . . . the terms and conditions set forth in your Term Grazing Permit,” and threatened similar permit action to that taken against Howard Ranch. The Butler Ranch NONC cited permit sections that authorize the Forest Service to cancel or suspend a permit for failure to comply with, inter alia, the allotment management plan. As with each grazing permit involved in this appeal, this permit covered an allotment which did not have an operative allotment management plan. Thus, the permit specified that the Forest Service would enforce the Forest Plan standards, as adjusted annually with range conditions, via the AOI. The Howard and Butler Ranches’ NONCs demonstrate the AOI’s legal effect: failure to comply with the AOI’s substantive terms can result in administrative sanctions against the permit holder. [11] The Forest Service argues that because the sanction for an AOI violation is against the permit, the AOI has no legal effect. However, as the district court noted in its ruling denying the Forest Service’s motion to dismiss, “[s]imply because an AO[I]’s authority is drawn from the permit does not make the agency’s decision reflected in the AO[I] any less of a final agency action.” ONDA, 312 F. Supp. 2d at 1343. Rather, that an AOI violation can prompt the Forest Service to take enforcement action against the non-complying permittee is a show of the AOI’s “legal force” and the Forest Service’s 11852 OREGON NATURAL DESERT v. USFS expectation of “immediate compliance with its terms.” Ukiah Valley Med. Ctr., 911 F.2d at 264.
The legal effect of an AOI is also demonstrated by the Forest Service’s use of the AOI to impose standards promulgated in the wake of the 1998 listing of the bull trout, a native salmonid species, as a threatened species under the ESA. As documented in the record, the Forest Service issued a grazing permit to Coombs Ranch for the Dollar Basin/Star Glade Allotments in 1996. The permit stated that no AMP existed for the allotments, but that the Forest Service was scheduled to develop one. It also stated that, in the meantime, the Forest Service would use the AOI “to bring management of the [allotments] into consistency with the terms of the Malheur [Forest Plan].” In 1998, the Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) listed the bull trout as a threatened species under the ESA, 63 Federal Reg. 31,647 (June 10, 1998), which triggered the Forest Service’s duty under the ESA to consult with FWS to insure that any agency action, such as authorization of grazing, on Forest Service land would not likely jeopardize the threatened species or its habitat. See 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). Since the 1998 listing, the relevant AOIs have incorporated bull trout standards and objectives. For example, the 1998 AOI for Dollar Basin/Star Glade allotments stated, “[b]eginning this year, standards and habitat objectives for bull trout are detailed for each unit.” The administrative record further reflects that AOIs for the other allotments subject to bull trout standards and objectives also contained similar statements between 1998-2003. Because the Forest Service issued most of the grazing permits underlying the AOIs challenged in this litigation prior to the bull trout listing and there are no current AMPs for the allotments, the AOI was the Forest Service’s principal means of imposing the new bull trout standards on the permit holders from 1998 forward. By OREGON NATURAL DESERT v. USFS 11853 restricting the rights of and conferring duties on a grazing permit holder to bring the Forest Service’s annual authorization of grazing into compliance with ESA requirements, the AOI is the Forest Service’s definitive statement that fixes the legal relationship between the Forest Service and the permit holder. The utilization of an AOI in this manner further supports our conclusion that an AOI is a final agency action. See Idaho Watersheds Project, 307 F.3d at 828 (“definitive position”); Ukiah Valley Med. Ctr., 911 F.2d at 264 (“fix some legal relationship”). Finally, the Forest Service argues that “[w]ithout the AOIs, the permittees would still be authorized to graze in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit.” The Forest Service’s position is contradicted by the terms of the grazing permit itself and Forest Service practice. The permit does not authorize the permit holder to graze continuously for the permit’s ten-year duration. Rather, the permit authorizes the permit holder to graze livestock only after the Forest Service has approved the permittee’s annual application. In practice, the Forest Service approves the application in conjunction with issuance of the AOI. Although the annual application calls for basic information, it is the AOI that indicates the detailed terms and conditions by which the Forest Service expects the permit holder to graze his livestock in the upcoming season. The Forest Service’s argument is not supported by the terms of the permit or by the record.14 14 OCA similarly argues that “[a]n AOI simply allows the [Forest Service] a way to communicate with the permittees on a yearly basis regarding the implementation of the terms and conditions in the term grazing permit.” However, as the Forest Service itself stated to permittee Coombs on May 27, 2004, “[t]he AOI is part of your permit . . . It is your responsibility to be familiar with and comply with your operating plan.” This statement, along with the other examples in the administrative record that highlight the legal significance of the AOI, make clear that the Forest Service expects immediate compliance with the AOI. See Indus. Customers of NW Utils., 408 F.3d at 646 (ruling that finality is indicated when “ ‘immediate compliance [with the terms] is expected’ ” (quoting Cal. Dep’t of Water Res. v. FERC, 341 F.3d 906, 909 (9th Cir. 2003) (alteration in original)). The Forest Service’s “own behavior [ ] belies the claim that its [annual operating instruction] is not final.” Whitman, 531 U.S. at 479. 11854 OREGON NATURAL DESERT v. USFS