Citizens for Better Forestry v. Department of Agriculture (2003)

The organization’s procedural injury “is tied to a substantive ‘harm to the environment,’” which “consists of added risk to the environment that takes place when governmental decisionmakers make up their minds without having before them an analysis (with public comment) of the likely effects of their decision on the environment.” Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 341 F.3d 961, 971 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting West v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Transp., 206 F.3d 920 , …

We have established that judicial review does not interfere with further administrative action when the agency’s decision is at “an administrative resting place.” Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 341 F.3d 961, 977 (9th Cir. 2003).

“The relevant inquiry ... is whether there is a ‘reasonable probability’ that the challenged procedural violation will harm the plaintiffs’ concrete interests, not how many steps must occur before such harm occurs.” Citizens for Better Forestry, 341 F.3d at 975 (internal citations' omitted).

Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 341 F.3d 961, 971 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Cf. Citizens for Better Forestry, 341 F.3d at 976 (stating, in standing context, that “[i]t suffices that the agency’s decision could be influenced” by public participation (alterations and citation removed) (emphasis in original)).

See id. at 970 (“It is evident, therefore, that a complete failure to involve or even inform the public about an agency’s preparation of an EA and a FONSI, as was the case here, violates these regulations.”) This case presents the first opportunity for us to squarely address the question in a case where the issue is presented. [15] We hold today that the circulation of a draft EA is not required in every case.

See id. at 970 (“It is evident, therefore, that a complete failure to involve or even inform the public about an agency's preparation of an EA and a FONSI, as was the case here, violates these regulations.”) This case presents the first opportunity for us to squarely address the question in a case where the issue is presented.

See id. at 970 (“It is evident, therefore, that a complete failure to involve or even inform the public about an agency’s preparation of an EA and a FONSI, as was the case here, violates these regulations.”) This case presents the first opportunity for us to squarely address the question in a case where the issue is presented.

See Jayne v. Sherman, 706 F.3d 994, 999 (9th Cir. 2013) (rejecting the argument that the plaintiffs’ “alleged injury is not imminent because the Idaho Roadless Rule is a programmatic rule that does not authorize the building of any roads or the logging of any trees”); Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 341 F.3d 961, 973 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge programmatic rule that did “not result in any direct environmental …

When a plaintiff alleges a procedural injury, he need only show that the procedures are “designed to protect some threatened concrete interest.” Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 341 F.3d 961, 969 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted); Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573 n.8.

“Although we have not established a minimum level of public comment and participation required by the regulations governing the EA and [Finding of No Significant Impact] process, we clearly have held that the regulations at issue must mean something.” Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dept. of Agric., 341 F.3d 961, 970 (9th Cir. 2003).

Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 341 F.3d 961, 972 (9th Cir. 2003) (simplified).

Recovery All. v. Gutierrez, 545 F.3d 1220, 1225 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 341 F.3d 961, 969 (9th Cir. 2003)).

It looked at human health and ecological risk, which are the factors under the statute—under FIFRA.” 16 Rural Coalition asserts an injury on behalf of its members and thus must also meet the requirements for associational standing. “[A]n association has standing to bring suit on behalf of its members when: (a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s “To satisfy the injury-in-…

Regardless of Plaintiffs’ motivation in commencing this suit, however, if a group is “trying to protect the environment,” then its “suit [] lies well within NEPA’s zone of interests.” Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 341 F.3d 961, 976 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Havasupai Tribe v. Provencio, 906 F.3d 1155, 1166 (9th Cir. 2018).

Regardless of Plaintiffs’ motivation in commencing this suit, however, if a group is “trying to protect the environment,” then its “suit [] lies well within NEPA’s zone of interests.” Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 341 F.3d 961, 976 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Havasupai Tribe v. Provencio, 906 F.3d 1155, 1166 (9th Cir. 2018).

Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 341 F.3d 961, 969 (9th Cir. 2003). 6 DENT V.

Injury-in-Fact A plaintiff shows a procedural injury-in-fact “when a procedural requirement has not been met, so long as the plaintiff also asserts a ‘concrete interest’ that is threatened by the failure to comply with that requirement.” City of Sausalito v. O’Neill, 386 F.3d 1186 , 1197 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 341 F.3d 961, 969-70 (9th Cir. 2003)).

“These plans op *1215 erate like zoning ordinances, defining broadly the uses allowed in various forest regions, setting goals and limits on various uses (from logging to road construction), but do not directly compel specific actions, such as cutting of trees in a particular area or construction of a specific road.” Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 341 F.3d 961, 966 (9th Cir. 2003).

First, the NFMA requires that the Forest Service develop “land and resource management plans,” commonly called forest plans, that set broad goals and guidelines for each national forest. 16 U.S.C. § 1604 (a), (e), (g); Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 341 F.3d 961, 966 (9th Cir. 2003).

First, the NFMA requires that the Forest Service develop “land and resource management plans,” commonly called forest plans, that set broad goals and guidelines for each national forest. 16 U.S.C. § 1604 (a), (e), (g); Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 341 F.3d 961, 966 (9th Cir. 2003).

Council v. Jewell, 749 F.3d at 783 (citing Citizens for *1233 Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 341 F.3d 961, 971 (9th Cir. 2003)).

Citizens for Better Forestry, 341 F.3d at 970 (“This wholesale neglect of the regulations’ mandatory inclusion of the public in the process results in a procedural injury”); see also Trustees for Alaska v. Hodel, 806 F.2d 1378, 1380 (9th Cir.1986) (finding that five environmental groups had standing to challenge alleged agency violations of procedural rights to review and comment on draft documents under NEPA); Defenders of Wildlife v. Johanns, 2005 WL 2620564 , at *9 (N.D.C…

Cf. Citizens for Better Forestry, 341 F.3d at 977 (“the planning of site-specific action vel non is irrelevant to the ripeness of an action raising a procedural injury.”); National Wildlife Fed’n v. Clark, 630 F.Supp. 412, 417 (D.D.C.1985) (holding that repealing regulations and issuing nonbinding guidelines in their place constituted final agency action pursuant to NEPA).

“The injury asserted is traceable to the 24 agencies issuing the [2019 Rescission Rule] allegedly in violation of the APA’s requirements.” 25 Azar, 911 F.3d at 573 ; see also Citizens for Better Forestry, 341 F.3d at 975 (“There is no dispute 26 about causation in this case, because this requirement is only implicated where the concern is that 27 Case Nos.: 5:20-cv-00455-EJD; 5:20-cv-01889-EJD 1 an injury caused by a third party is too tenuously connected to the acts of the …

“To satisfy Article Ill’s standing requirements, a plaintiff must show (1) it has suffered an injury in fact that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture, 341 F.3d 961, 96…

See also Citizens for Better Forestry, 341 F.3d at 975 (“[C]ausation ... is only implicated where the concern is that an injury caused by a third party is too tenuously connected to the acts of the defendant.”); Idaho Conservation League v. Mumma, 956 F.2d 1508, 1518 (9th Cir.1992) (“The causation question concerns only whether plaintiffs’ injury is dependent upon the agency’s policy, or is instead the result of independent incentives governing [a] third part[y’s] deci-sionm…

While motorists who use LED headlamps directly harmed 11 Plaintiff, given that the agencies’ regulatory mandates plainly encompass LED lights, this is not a 12 case where “an injury caused by a third party is too tenuously connected to the [omissions] of the 13 defendant.” Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture, 341 F.3d 961, 975 (9th Cir. 14 2003); see also Idaho Conservation League v. Mumma, 956 F.2d 1508, 1518 (9th Cir. 1992) 15 (“The causation question…

See, e.g., California v. Azar, 911 F.3d 558 , 4 571 (9th Cir. 2018) (finding procedural injury where agency issued “[interim final rules] without 5 notice and comment as required under the [Administrative Procedure Act]”) (emphasis added); 6 Citizens for Better Forestry, 341 F.3d at 970 (“Citizens were deprived of the opportunity to 7 comment on the USDA's EA and FONSI at all points in the rulemaking process.

Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 341 F.3d 961, 972 (9th Cir. 2003).

Cf. City of Sausalito v. O'Neill , 386 F.3d 1186 , 1204-05 (9th Cir. 2004) (plaintiff city within zone of interests of Concessions Management Improvement Act because it "assert[ed] injury to its 'proprietary interest' "); Citizens for Better Forestry , 341 F.3d at 976 (plaintiffs had statutory standing because "trying to protect the environment" was within zone of interests of National Environmental Policy Act).

Ctr., 36 F.4th at 870 (quoting Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 341 F.3d 961, 977 (9th Cir. 2003)).

Plaintiffs asserting a procedural injury must show “that the 19 procedures in question are designed to protect some threatened concrete interest of [theirs] 20 that is the ultimate basis of [their] standing.” Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep’t of 21 Agric., 341 F.3d 961, 969 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). 22 Once a plaintiff establishes a procedural injury, the burden for the last two prongs 23 of the standing inquiry lessens.

Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 341 F.3d 961, 966 (9th Cir. 2003); Ohio Forestry Ass’n, Inc. v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726, 729 (1998).

Plaintiffs asserting a procedural injury must show “that the 14 procedures in question are designed to protect some threatened concrete interest of [theirs] 15 that is the ultimate basis of [their] standing.” Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep’t of 16 Agric., 341 F.3d 961, 969 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). 17 Once a plaintiff establishes a procedural injury, the burden for the last two prongs 18 of the standing inquiry lessens.

Doc. 29 at 18. 6 Failure to conduct a required consultation is a procedural injury for standing purposes. 7 Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 341 F.3d 961, 969 (9th Cir. 2003). 8 Second, the Center's members assert that cadmium threatens their educational, 9 professional, and recreational activities associated with protected species.

Standing 20 “Article III requires that the plaintiff have a concrete and particularized injury fairly 21 traceable to the challenged conduct that likely can be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” 22 Inland Empire Waterkeeper v. Corona Clay Co., 17 F.4th 825, 831 (9th Cir. 2021). “‘An 23 association has standing to bring suit on behalf of its members when its members would 24 otherwise have standing to sue in their own right, the interests at stake are germane to the…

Council v. Jewell, 749 F.3d 776, 783 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 341 F.3d 961, 971 (9th Cir. 2003)).

“These plans operate like zoning ordinances, defining broadly the uses 15 allowed in various forest regions, setting goals and limits on various uses (from logging to road 16 construction), but do not directly compel specific actions . . . .” Citizens for Better Forestry v. 17 U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 341 F.3d 961, 966 (9th Cir. 2003).

See also Navajo Nation v. Dep’t of the Interior, 27 876 F.3d 1144, 1164 (9th Cir. 2017) (“If [the Nation’s] interest in adequate water were, to - 25 - Case 2:21-cv-00617-DWL Document 47 Filed 02/07/22 Page 26 of 32 1 a reasonable probability, potentially injured by a proposed federal action, the Nation 2 would have standing to challenge NEPA compliance.”) (emphasis added); Citizens for 3 Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture, 341 F.3d 961, 972 (9th Cir. 2003) 4 (empha…

A plaintiff can satisfy the injury-in-fact prong of standing when challenging a procedural injury “by showing (i) the agency violated certain procedural rules, (ii) those rules protect a concrete interest of the plaintiff, and (iii) it is ‘reasonably probable’ that the challenged action threatens that concrete interest.” Id. (quoting Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 341 F.3d 961, 969-70 (9th Cir. 2003)).

It asserts, however, that the collection agency has not taken any concrete 26 27 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 1 steps to collect on the debt and that plaintiff has not made any payments thereon. 2 To the extent plaintiff is asserting a due process claim based on the government’s failure 3 to follow the procedures set forth in Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983), he “must show 4 that the procedures in question are designed to protect some threatened concrete interest of his …

Plaintiffs allege its members have suffered a procedural injury, that is their “aesthetic, recreational, spiritual, and educational interests” in the survival and recovery of bull trout are harmed by the Service’s failure to abide by Section 4(f)’s requirements, resulting in the “promulgation of an unlawful, inadequate recovery plan for bull trout[.]” (Doc. 1 at 4 & Doc. 25 at 34-35.) A plaintiff complaining of a procedural injury “must show that the procedures in question a…

Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 341 F.3d 961, 966 (9th Cir. 2003); Ohio Forestry Ass’n, Inc. v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726, 729 (1998).

Plaintiffs’ alleged procedural injury stems from the risk that takes place “when governmental decisionmakers make up their minds without having before them an analysis of the likely effects of their decision on the environment.” Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 341 F.3d 961, 971 (9th Cir. 2003).

Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 341 F.3d 961, 966 (9th Cir. 2003); Ohio Forestry Ass'n, Inc. v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726, 729 (1998).

The Tongass National Forest (“Tongass”) is a 16.7 million-acre forest in Southeast Alaska.4 The nation’s largest national forest,5 the Tongass has seen timber harvesting of varying intensity over the past 100 years.6 In the 1950s, the Forest Service awarded several 50-year timber sale contracts in the forest to “provide a sound economic base in Alaska through establishment of a permanent year-round pulp industry.”7 But logging in the Tongass began to slow in the 1980s and 19…

Defendants begin by noting that a forest plan such as theirs defines “broadly the uses allowed in various forest regions [and sets] goals and limits on various uses . . . but do[es] not directly compel specific actions.” Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 341 F.3d 961, 966 (9th Cir. 2003).

See Wildearth Guardians v. U.S. Dep’t of Ag., 795 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2015); Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep’t of Ag., 341 F.3d 961, 970 (9th Cir. 2003).

Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 341 F.3d 961, 969-70 (9th Cir. 2003).