Opinion ID: 2753690
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The ESA Claims

Text: Pursuant to Section 11(g)(1)(A) of the ESA, citizen suits are permitted to enjoin persons who are “alleged to be in violation” of the ESA or the applicable regulations. 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(1)(A). A plaintiff who seeks to pursue a citizen suit must comply with a 60-day notice requirement that “put[s] the agencies on notice of a perceived violation of the statute and an intent to sue.” Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 143 F.3d 515, 520 (9th Cir. 1998). The notice requirement provides agencies with “an opportunity to review their actions and take corrective measures if warranted.” Id. Accordingly, it is a 4 Alliance asserts that under Forest Guardians v. Johanns, 450 F.3d 455 (9th Cir. 2006), it is still entitled to declaratory relief that the Park Service and FWS have a continuing obligation to engage in reconsultation. Unlike in Johanns, however, there is no evidence in the summary judgment record to suggest that the Park Service has been uncooperative in the Section 7 consultation process, nor that the Park Service is under any annual obligation to undertake consultation absent new information. See id. at 462. Accordingly, Johanns does not apply here. 20 ALLIANCE FOR THE WILD ROCKIES V. USDA “mandatory condition[] precedent to commencing suit” under the ESA, Hallstrom v. Tillamook Cnty., 493 U.S. 20, 31 (1989), and a failure to comply “acts as an absolute bar to bringing suit under the ESA.” Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity, 143 F.3d at 520. The question here is whether Alliance complied with the ESA’s 60-day notice requirement when it gave notice of its intent to sue under the ESA but then filed a complaint alleging non-ESA claims, later amending the complaint to add ESA claims after the 60-day notice period had expired.5 We have not previously addressed that precise issue. In light of the plain text of the statute and the persuasive reasoning of other courts that have considered similar notice requirements, we conclude that Alliance properly commenced its ESA suit under § 1540(g)(2)(A)(i) when it filed the amended complaint. “[T]he starting point for interpreting a statute is the language of the statute itself.” Consumer Prod. Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102, 108 (1980). Section 11(g)(1)(A) states:
subsection any person may commence a civil suit on his own behalf – 5 Alliance argues that our prior decision in Ecological Rights Foundation v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 713 F.3d 502 (9th Cir. 2013), “recognizes that a plaintiff may amend a complaint to add claims after a 60-day notice ripens.” In that case, both the original and the amended complaints were filed more than sixty days after notice was given. 713 F.3d at 506–7, 519. Accordingly, Ecological Rights did not resolve the question raised here. ALLIANCE FOR THE WILD ROCKIES V. USDA 21 (A) to enjoin any person, including the United States and any other governmental instrumentality or agency (to the extent permitted by the eleventh amendment to the Constitution), who is alleged to be in violation of any provision of this chapter or regulation issued under the authority thereof; 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(1)(A). Under Section 11(g)(2)(A), [n]o action may be commenced under subparagraph (1)(A) of this section . . . (i) prior to sixty days after written notice of the violation has been given to the Secretary, and to any alleged violator of any such provision or regulation . . . . 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(2)(A). The plain language of § 11(g)(2)(A)(i) unambiguously states that actions under the ESA may not commence until 60 days after a potential plaintiff has notified the Secretary and any alleged violator of a purported ESA violation. In considering the mandatory nature of a similar notice requirement in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (the “RCRA”) in Hallstrom, the Supreme Court concluded that the statutory requirement “could not be clearer,” and the notice requirement is a condition precedent that the plaintiff must satisfy before commencing suit. Hallstrom, 493 U.S. at 26.6 6 As the Supreme Court noted in Hallstrom, the language in the notice and delay provision of the RCRA echos the 60-day notice provision in Section 304 of the Clean Air Amendments of 1970. See Hallstrom, 493 22 ALLIANCE FOR THE WILD ROCKIES V. USDA The text of § 11(g)(2)(A)(i) also makes clear that the notice requirement pertains only to actions commenced under § 11(g)(1)(A). Section 11(g)(2)(A)(i), like the RCRA notice requirement, specifically limits the applicability of the notice requirement to those actions commenced under Section 11(g)(1)(A) of the ESA and extends only to the citizen suit provision contained in the statute. See Hallstrom, 493 U.S. at 26; 42 U.S.C. § 6972(b)(1) (1982 ed.). Although the federal defendants urge that the legislative purpose of the notice requirement is to afford agencies a complete “litigation free window” in which to remedy alleged ESA violations, they fail to identify any provision in the statute which suggests that the ESA’s notice requirement should be interpreted to preclude filing of a complaint alleging nonESA claims before the 60-day notice period expires. Moreover, the legislative purpose of the notice requirement similarly fails to support the federal defendants’ arguments. The legislative history of the first citizen suit statute, Section 304 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, “indicates an intent to strike a balance between encouraging citizen enforcement of environmental regulations and avoiding burdening the federal courts with excessive numbers of citizen suits.” Hallstrom, 493 U.S. at 29 (citing 116 Cong. Rec. 32927 (1970)). In Hallstrom, the Supreme Court emphasized that the notice requirement serves this goal by “allow[ing] Government agencies to take responsibility for enforcing environmental regulations,” and “giv[ing] the alleged violator an opportunity to bring itself U.S. at 23 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 7604 (1982 ed.)). Since the enactment of Section 304, at least sixteen other federal environmental statutes have incorporated almost identical notice provisions, including the ESA. Id. at 23 n.1. ALLIANCE FOR THE WILD ROCKIES V. USDA 23 into complete compliance with the Act.” Id. at 29 (internal quotation marks omitted). So too, here: notice of an alleged ESA violation provides federal agencies with an opportunity to “take responsibility” for enforcing the ESA and to correct any violation short of litigation. However, there is nothing in the ESA that remotely suggests that a potential ESA plaintiff must refrain from commencing suit to pursue other non-ESA claims before the 60-day period expires. Indeed, despite incorporating notice requirements into numerous environmental statutes, see Hallstrom, 493 U.S. at 23 n.1, Congress has thus far declined to include such a prefiling requirement in NEPA and NFMA. Were we to read Section 11(g)(2)(A)(i) as encompassing claims under NEPA and NFMA, we would be imposing a de facto notice requirement for cases that also potentially raise ESA issues where Congress has explicitly declined to do so. This we decline to do. See Iselin v. United States, 270 U.S. 245, 251 (1926) (holding that the courts will not read language into a statute where it would result in “an enlargement of [the statute] by the court, so that what was omitted . . . may be included within its scope”). Thus, although Alliance gave notice of its intent to file suit under § 11(g)(1)(A), that notice did not limit its right to file an action alleging non-ESA claims before the 60-day notice period expired. Once the 60-day notice period expired, Alliance could properly commence its suit under the ESA by amending its complaint to include claims under Sections 7 and 9 of the ESA. We are not the only court to read a provision similar to § 11(g)(2)(A)(i) in this manner. In Zands v. Nelson, 779 F. Supp. 1254, 1257 (S.D. Cal. 1991), the district court 24 ALLIANCE FOR THE WILD ROCKIES V. USDA addressed whether the plaintiff had prematurely commenced suit under the RCRA when the plaintiff amended the original complaint to add a RCRA claim. The plaintiffs had filed their initial complaint prior to giving the 60-day notice, but waited until almost a year after the notice period expired to amend the complaint. Id. The district court concluded that, “for purposes of a notice and delay provision relating to a new claim which appears for the first time in the pleadings in the amended complaint, the Court will look to the filing of the amended complaint to determine when the ‘action’ is commenced.” Id. at 1259. In so holding, the district court reasoned that where plaintiffs have claims that do not require notice, they should not be required to forego raising those claims in a timely manner, as “the [c]ourt [does not] believe that Congress intended that the notice and delay provision . . . would impede plaintiffs’ ability to bring claims that do not have notice and delay provisions.” Id. at 1261. Accordingly, the district court aptly noted, while the 60-day notice requirement encourages voluntary compliance with the requisite statute, “[t]his purpose in and of itself does not warrant the creation of a ‘non-adversarial’ period that is not explicitly in the statute.” Id. We agree with the reasoning of Zands and hold that, for purposes of notice, we may look to the filing of an amended complaint to determine when an action is commenced under the ESA. See Zands, 779 F. Supp. at 1259. Accordingly, Alliance properly complied with the requirements of Section 11(g)(2)(A)(i) when it filed an amended complaint alleging its ESA claims after the 60-day notice period expired.7 7 The federal defendants and MDOL urge us to follow the reasoning of Proie v. National Marine Fisheries Service, No. C11-5955BHS, 2012 WL 1536756 at  (W.D. Wash. May 1, 2012), which held that the 60-day notice period must be a “litigation-free window” precluding the filing of ALLIANCE FOR THE WILD ROCKIES V. USDA 25 Although we acknowledge the beneficial purposes of the 60-day notice period, these purposes do not outweigh Alliance’s right to proceed on its other claims without any waiting period. Had Alliance been unable to file its original complaint while it waited for the notice period to expire, it would have been precluded from seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction on its NEPA claims until after the ESA notice period had expired. Such a delay could impose significant burdens on plaintiffs when confronted with the need to seek immediate relief. See Zands, 779 F. Supp at 1261. Accordingly, we hold that the district court erred in concluding that Alliance could not pursue its ESA claims for failure to comply with § 11(g)(2)(A)(i).8 any complaint. But Proie concerned a different situation. In Proie, the plaintiffs gave notice of their intent to sue under the ESA but, 21 days later, filed a complaint alleging claims under the APA seeking judicial review of a purported ESA violation. Id. at , 3. After the 60-day notice period expired, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding a claim for relief directly under the ESA. Id. at . Because both the APA and the ESA claims arose from the same alleged ESA violation, the district court determined that the plaintiffs improperly attempted to circumvent the ESA’s “litigation-free” period and, therefore, “failed to comply with the requisite notice period.” Id. at –4 (internal quotation marks omitted). Unlike in Proie, Alliance’s original complaint did not indirectly raise an ESA claim, but instead alleged NEPA and NFMA claims distinct from any ESA violations. 8 Alliance sent its original ESA 60-day notice letter to the Forest Service, Park Service, MDOL, USDA and Interior. On July 8, 2011, it served an amended ESA notice naming Inspection Service and FWS. Alliance has subsequently explained that the second ESA notice was “not used by [Alliance] as the basis for litigation.” Because Inspection Service and FWS were not given notice of the ESA claims in the original notice, and that is the notice upon which Alliance relies, we affirm the district 26 ALLIANCE FOR THE WILD ROCKIES V. USDA
Alliance also alleges that the federal defendants and MDOL have violated Section 9 of the ESA. Alliance contends that the Management Plan’s helicopter hazing program has so harassed Yellowstone grizzly bears as to constitute a “take” under Section 9, and that the district court therefore erred in granting the federal defendants summary judgment on this claim and dismissing the claim against MDOL. Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the taking of an endangered or threatened species. 16 U.S.C. § 1538(a)(1)(B). The ESA defines “take” to mean “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” 16 U.S.C. § 1532(19). “Harass” is further defined as “an intentional or negligent act . . . which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.” 50 C.F.R. § 17.3; see also Marbled Murrelet v. Babbitt, 83 F.3d 1060, 1068 (9th Cir. 1996). A take may involve a past or current injury, or the prospect of an imminent threat of harm to a protected species. Forest Conservation Council v. Rosboro Lumber Co., 50 F.3d 781, 784 (9th Cir. 1995). Viewing this record in the light most favorable to Alliance, we hold that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to the federal defendants on the Section 9 claim and dismissing the claim against MDOL. court’s dismissal of Alliance’s ESA claims against FWS and Inspection Service. ALLIANCE FOR THE WILD ROCKIES V. USDA 27 Alliance alleges that “[h]elicopter hazing operations cause take because they displace grizzly bears, including female bears, from critical spring and summer feeding activities.” Included in this record is a video Alliance obtained of a “bison-hazing helicopter operation” which purportedly depicts a “grizzly bear running away from the helicopter” on May 12, 2010. The videographer, however, does not state and the district court could not conclude that “the bear was engaged in any feeding activity, whether before, during, or after its contact with the helicopter.” Alliance also contends that current scientific evidence supports a finding that the flight response of grizzly bears in response to helicopters is not a normal physiological response to being startled, but is indicative of significant disruption to normal behavioral patterns. In support of this argument, Alliance has submitted a report prepared by the Park Service concerning the effects of overflights on wildlife in the parks, including grizzly bears, and the Forest Service’s own “Guide to Effects Analysis of Helicopter Use in Grizzly Bear Habitat,” which acknowledges the negative effects of helicopters on grizzly bears. Yet the record before the district court at the time of summary judgment lacks evidence to show that MDOL’s helicopter hazing is of the type that the report and Guide link to significant disruption of grizzly bear behavioral patterns. The federal defendants acknowledge that the hazing can impact grizzly bears, but assert that hazing operations “infrequently occurred in the presence of grizzly bears” and “would cease if there was evidence of grizzlies being active in the area.” Although there was evidence in the summary judgment record that helicopters had flown over bears, there was no evidence that helicopters had continued hazing operations in areas with signs of grizzly bear presence in violation of the instructions to stop. 28 ALLIANCE FOR THE WILD ROCKIES V. USDA Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s conclusion that on this record Alliance has failed to raise a triable issue as to whether a take has occurred or is likely to occur under Section 9 of the ESA.