Opinion ID: 656190
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Standing under NEPA

Text: 6 We review the issue of standing de novo. Ellis v. City of La Mesa, 990 F.2d 1518, 1523 (9th Cir.1993).
7 The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq., provides that a plaintiff seeking to challenge an agency action must be adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute. 5 U.S.C. § 702 (1988). 1 Thus, in addition to constitutional standing requirements, under the APA a plaintiff must assert an interest arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute or constitutional guarantee in question. Association of Data Processing Serv. Org., Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 153, 90 S.Ct. 827, 830, 25 L.Ed.2d 184 (1970). The purpose of the zone of interests test is to exclude those plaintiffs whose suits are more likely to frustrate than to further statutory objectives. Clarke v. Securities Indus. Ass'n, 479 U.S. 388, 397 n. 12, 107 S.Ct. 750, 756 n. 12, 93 L.Ed.2d 757 (1987). 8 Accordingly, in order to challenge the LRMP under NEPA, NLAA must allege that its injury is within the zone of interests protected by NEPA. NEPA was enacted in order to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man. 42 U.S.C. § 4321 (1988). The purpose of NEPA is to protect the environment, not the economic interests of those adversely affected by agency decisions. Portland Audubon Soc'y v. Hodel, 866 F.2d 302, 309 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 911, 109 S.Ct. 3229, 106 L.Ed.2d 577 (1989). Therefore a plaintiff who asserts purely economic injuries does not have standing to challenge an agency action under NEPA. See Port of Astoria v. Hodel, 595 F.2d 467, 475 (9th Cir.1979); accord Competitive Enter. Inst. v. National Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 901 F.2d 107, 123-24 (D.C.Cir.1990); Churchill Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 533 F.2d 411, 416 (8th Cir.1976); Clinton Community Hosp. Corp. v. Southern Maryland Medical Ctr., 510 F.2d 1037, 1038 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 422 U.S. 1048, 95 S.Ct. 2666, 45 L.Ed.2d 700 (1975). 9 NLAA admits that the primary injury suffered by its members is economic, but contends that the LRMP also affects the human environment of the NLAA members and has therefore caused lifestyle loss as well as economic loss. NLAA further argues that its members have an economic interest in maintaining the forest resources and therefore in protecting the environment. However, NLAA does not allege that the increased grazing levels it seeks would benefit the natural environment, and there seems to be substantial evidence to the contrary. NLAA cannot invoke NEPA to prevent lifestyle loss when the lifestyle in question is damaging to the environment. Since NLAA's suit is more likely to frustrate than to further the objectives of NEPA, Clarke, 479 U.S. at 397 n. 12, 107 S.Ct. at 756 n. 12, NLAA lacks standing to challenge the LRMP under NEPA. 2