Opinion ID: 36501
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Livestock

Text: Petitioners raise several challenges to the EIS’s analysis of the RBTI’s environmental effects. First, petitioners claim that the Air Force, and the FAA in adopting the EIS, did not adequately consider the effects of the proposal on the livestock on ranches underlying the RBTI route. Presumably relying on the principle that agencies must follow their own rules13, petitioners argue that the Air Force failed to take the requisite “hard look”14 at livestock impacts because it did not follow its 1993 handbook, “The Impact of Low Altitude Flights on Livestock and Poultry” (Handbook).15 Petitioners argue that, because the Air 12 Id. at 174-75. 13 Lyng v. Payne, 476 U.S. 926, 934 (1986). 14 Marsh v. Or. Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 374 (1989). 15 In its “Findings” section, the Handbook states: Any establishment of new low altitude airspace will seek to minimize potential impacts on livestock and poultry. An initial consideration is the regional distribution of sensitive livestock and poultry operations in the geographical region being considered for low altitude flight. This regional distribution will be determined by identifying those counties that are among the leading counties for livestock and poultry commodities in their respective 8 Force did not undertake the county- and individual-level inquiry outlined in the Handbook, but instead relied on several studies of the effects of low-level overflights on livestock and a general overview of the underlying region, its analysis was inadequate under NEPA. Petitioners rely on Idaho Sporting Congress, Inc. v. Rittenhouse, in which the Ninth Circuit invalidated a Forest Service EIS, because it analyzed impact on certain species on a “home range” scale, contrary to a Forest Service report stating, “the habitat needs of these species must be addressed at a landscape scale.”16 Contrary to Rittenhouse, however, cases have generally required that an agency pronouncement have the force and effect of law in order to bind the agency.17 To have the force and effect of law, an agency pronouncement state. ... In addition to consideration of counties, individual livestock and poultry operations within an area proposed for an MTR will also be considered. 16 305 F.3d 957, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Utahns for Better Transp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 305 F.3d 1152, 1165 (10th Cir. 2002) (stating that “[a]gencies are under an obligation to follow their own regulations, procedures, and precedents, or provide a rational explanation for their departure” and invalidating EIS because agency did not follow its own regulation). 17 See, e.g., Lyng, 476 U.S. at 937 (stating that “not all agency publications are of binding force”); Schweiker v. Hansen, 450 U.S. 785, 789-90 (1981) (holding that Social Security Administration Claims Manual was not binding agency rule); Fano v. O’Neill, 806 F.2d 1262, 1264 (5th Cir. 1987) (holding that INS Operations Instructions did not bind agency “because they are not an exercise of delegated legislative power and do not 9 normally “must have been promulgated pursuant to a specific statutory grant of authority and in conformance with the procedural requirements imposed by Congress.”18 Petitioners do not argue, nor does the record show, that the Air Force’s Handbook was promulgated according to the APA’s procedural requirements. See 5 U.S.C. § 553. Thus the Air Force retained discretion to analyze impacts on livestock by methods other than those contained in the Handbook, and we must address the adequacy of the Air Force’s chosen method according to the arbitrary and capricious standard and the relevant criteria announced in Westphal. Because determining whether the RBTI overflights will have a significant adverse effect on livestock requires resolution of issues of fact, we defer purport to be anything other than internal house-keeping measures.”); Western Radio Servs. Co. v. Espy, 79 F.3d 896, 900-01 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[W]e will review an agency’s alleged noncompliance with an agency pronouncement only if that pronouncement actually has the force and effect of law.”); Gatter v. Nimmo, 672 F.2d 343, 347 (3d Cir. 1982) (holding that Veteran’s Administration publications did not bind agency, because they were not promulgated using APA procedural requirements for rulemaking); Fed. Land Bank in Receivership v. Fed. Intermediate Credit Bank, 727 F. Supp. 1055, 1058 (D. Miss. 1989) (holding that agency directive not promulgated according to APA procedure did not have force and effect of law). 18 U.S. v. Fifty-Three Eclectus Parrots, 685 F.2d 1131, 1136 (9th Cir. 1982); see also Gatter, 672 F.2d at 347; McGrail & Rowley v. Babbit, 986 F. Supp. 1386, 1393-94 (S.D. Fla. 1997); Fed. Land Bank, 727 F. Supp. at 1058. 10 substantially to the Air Force’s expert analysis of the relevant data.19 The EIS and administrative record reveal that the Air Force considered several studies and comments regarding potential impacts on livestock, including those indicating adverse effects. “[I]n making the factual inquiry whether an agency decision was ‘arbitrary or capricious,’ the reviewing court ‘must consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment.’”20 After reviewing the administrative record, we conclude that the Air Force’s determination that no conclusive evidence showed adverse effects, based on its consideration of relevant studies, was not a clear error of judgment. In addition, the Air Force included a discussion of these studies in the main body of the EIS and its appendices, providing “detail sufficient to allow those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and consider the pertinent environmental influences involved.”21 We therefore find the EIS’s analysis of livestock impacts adequate. 19 Marsh v. Or. Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 377 (1989) (quoting Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 412 (1976)). 20 Marsh, 490 U.S. at 378 (quoting Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416 (1971)). 21 Westphal, 230 F.3d at 174. 11 Because the Air Force’s analysis complied with NEPA, the FAA’s adoption of this portion of the EIS did not violate its obligations under that statute.22