Cahill Ranches, Inc. v. Bureau of Land Management, No. 1:2021cv01363 - Document 63 (D. Or. 2023)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: regarding Motion to Compel Completion and/or Supplementation of the Administrative Record 51 . Motion 51 is DENIED. Please access entire text by document number hyperlink. Signed on 07/06/2023 by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke. (rsm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Cahill Ranches, Inc. v. Bureau of Land Management Case 1:21-cv-01363-CL Doc. 63 Document 63 Filed 07/06/23 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MEDFORD DIVISION CAHILL RANCHES, INC., Case No. 1 :21-cv-0 1363-CL Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER v. UNITED STATES BUREAU OF LAND :MANAGEMENT, Defendant, and OREGONNATURAL DESERT ASSOCIATION, Intervenor-Defendant. CLARKE, United States Magistrate Judge: This case comes before the Courton Plaintiffs Motion to Complete and Supplement the Administrative Record (ECF No. 51) ("Pl. 's Mot."). For the reasons below, Plaintiffs motion is DENIED. l - Opinion and Order Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:21-cv-01363-CL Document 63 Filed 07/06/23 Page 2 of 5 DISCUSSION Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: (1) requiring Defendant.United States Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") to search for and complete the administrative record with comments by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife("ODFW") on a draft of the 2015 Greater Sage Grouse Resource Management Plan Amendment ("2015 RMPA"); and (2) allowing Plaintiff to supplement the administrative record with two letters submitted by ODFW to BLM concerning the Rahilly-Gravelly Allotment in 2017 and 2022.Pl.'s Mot. 2, ECF No.51. I. Motion to Complete the Administrative Record After Plaintiff filed its motion, BLM completed a supplemental search for additional ODFW comments inadvertently omitted from the administrative record and agreed to add several emails and attachments containing comments fromODFW. BLM'sResp. 1, ECF No. 59. Plaintiff acknowledges that BLM provided Plaintiff with over 500 pages of additional comments from ODFW on draft versions of the 2015 RMPA. Pl. 's Reply 2, ECF No. 61. BLM argues, and Plaintiff conceded at oral argument, that Plaintiffs request is now moot. See BLM's Resp. 4, ECF No. 59;see also Pl.'s Reply 2, ECFNo. 61. The Court agrees. Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion to complete the administrative record is denied as moot. II. Motion to Supplement the Administrative Record In general, review of an agency decision under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") is limited to the administrative record in existence atthe time of the decision. San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Locke, 776F.3d 971,992 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 13 8, 142 (1973 )). "This rule ensures that the reviewing court affords sufficient deference to the agency's action." Id. "When a reviewing court considers evidence that was not before the agency, it inevitably leads the reviewing court to substitute its judgment for that of the 2 - Opinion and Order Case 1:21-cv-01363-CL Document 63 Filed 07/06/23 Page 3 of 5 agency." Asarco, Inc. v. US.Envtl. Prof. Agency, 616F.2d 1153, 1160 (9thCir.1980). When a court considers such evidence, "the reviewing court effectively conducts a de novo review of the agency's action rather than limiting itself to the deferential procedural review that the APA's arbitrary or capricious standard permits." Locke, 776 F.3d at 992. The Ninth Circuit has recognized four exceptions to this general rule, permitting courts to admit extra-record evidence: "(1) if admission is necessary to determine whether the agency has considered all relevant factors and has explained its decision, (2) if the agency has relied on documents not in the record, (3) when supplementing the record is necessary to explain technical terms or complex subject matter, or (4) when plaintiffs make a showing of agency bad faith." Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019, 1030 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). "These exceptions are to be narrowly construed, and the party seeking to admit extra-record evidence initially bears the burden of demonstrating that a relevant exception applies." Locke, 776F.3d at992-93. Here, Plaintiff argues the two ODFW letters fall under the "relevant factors" exception. Pl.'s Mot. 6, ECF No. 51. "Although the relevant factors exception permits a district court to consider extra-record evidence to develop a background against which it can evaluate the integrity of the agency's analysis, the exception does not permit district courts to use extrarecord evidence to judge the wisdom of the agency's action." Locke, 776 F.3d at 993 (citing Asarco, 616 F.2d at 1160). In other words, a court "may admit evidence under this exception only to help the court understand whether the agency complied with the APA' s requirement that the agency's decision be neither arbitrary nor capricious." Id. (citations omitted). However, a court "may not look to this evidence as a basis for questioning the agency's scientific analyses or conclusions." Id. (citingAsarco, 616F.2d at 1160-61). 3 - Opinion and Order Case 1:21-cv-01363-CL Document 63 Filed 07/06/23 Page 4 of 5 Here, Plaintiff seeks to supplement the record with two ODFW letters that post-date BLM's decision. See Declaration of Aaron Bruner, Exs. 1-2, ECF Nos. 52-1, 52-3. The Court finds that existing comments in the administrative record mirror the substantive contents of the two ODFW letters. 1 The comm enters• identities are immaterial because the substance of those comments is the same as the substance of the two ODFW letters. Additionally, the State of Oregon's consolidated comments reflect that "[t]he Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, through our Cooperating Agency status, has coordinated the attached comments from all state agencies." OR_0034325,Hamilton Deel. at 384, ECFNo. 59-3. There is no reason for this Court to admit two letters from the same state agency that were sent after BLM' s decision when ODFW submitted comments that are already contained in the record. If the Court were to admit these two letters, it would be effectively opening the administrative record as a forum to debate 1 See, e.g.,BLM'sResp.,Ex.3 (Declaration ofEmmaL.Hamilton),ECFNo. 59-3 ("Hamilton Dec!."); id. at 128 (OR_0003102) ("The BLMeliminatedcattle grazing in the Hart Refuge 30years ago. Since then, wehavenotseen an increase in the sage grouse population on the Hart Refuge. There is no rational reason, no scientifically defensibe position, in expanding this failed natural resource experimentto more landneartheHart Refuge. This action will devastate the Adel and Plush ranchers, as well as the tax base they provide for the Lakeview community as a whole."); id. at l 32(OR_0003106) ("[A]t least for the Lakeview Resource Area, many of the roads going through theseACEC/RNA's are the only access roads available to get to otherpartsoftheResource Area ...."); id at 197 (OR_000317l) ("Specifically, the Hart Mountain and Sheldon National Refuges, both have been ungrazedsince the l 990's.Both refuges are within 30 and 10 miles of the Rahilly-Gravelly allotment respectively. In ourview, it makes scientific sense to advance research studies on sage-grouse habitat on the refuges where cattle grazing has been not permitted fornearly 20 years."); id. at3 84(OR_0034325) ("The Oregon DepartmentofFish and Wildlife, through ourCooperatingAgency status, has coordinated the attached comments from allsta te agencies."); id at 400-01 (OR_0034341-42) ("[T]he State is not opposed to restrictions on livestock grazing where site-specific evidence supports that approach. But generalized approaches raise concern, and the State believes further analysis is warranted in evaluatingwhetherretiringpermits would positively impact GRSG and what thesocialandeconomic impacts of closures and restrictions would be."); id. at404(OR_0034345 )("Removinglivestockgrazingfrom RNAs can increase grazing pressure on other areas which would be detrimental to the overall landscape and rangelandhealthas well as cause negative economic impacts to the affected communities."); id. at 474 (OR_0 165951 )("Studieshaveshownthat properly managed light-moderate livestock grazing has little effect to Sage-grouse habitat. Hart Mtn. and Sheldon Antelope Reserve currently provide a large scale study area for com paring the effects of no livestock grazing with grazed areas on BLMallotments throughout eastern Oregon. Studies have shownthatwhencomparedto similar elevations of these two reserves, there isno difference in sagegrouse population numbers."); id at 4 78 (OR_01659 55) ("The economic loss to the permittee would be about 1,200 AUMS in loss grazingcapacityandthat would be significantto bo1hthe permitteeandthe local community."). 4 - Opinion and Order Case 1:21-cv-01363-CL Document 63 Filed 07/06/23 Page 5 of 5 the wisdom of BLM's decision. See Locke, 776 F.3d at 993. As such, Plaintiffs motion to supplementthe record is denied. ORDER For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs Motion to Complete an Administrative Record (ECFNo. 51) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED and DATED this - - 5 - Opinion and Order
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
